# Non Resident Deer License



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Time to get a little debate going before deer season. Currently we only allow 1% to go to non residents. I'm in favour of raising it to 3% for whitetailed deer only. Any thought on this?


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

There are a lot of tags still available for NR's at 50 bucks a tag, so we probably don't need more if we can't sell the ones we have. 8)


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Buckseye, Those tags are unlimited to nonresident and are doe tags. The percentage increase would be for the first drawing for buck tags.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

G/O, What do you get for a guided whitetail hunt????

Just Askin????


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Good question, nothing I never draw any licenses if I did it would be my regular rates plus the cost of license.


----------



## MOSSBACK (Jun 10, 2004)

g/o said:


> Time to get a little debate going before deer season. Currently we only allow 1% to go to non residents. I'm in favour of raising it to 3% for whitetailed deer only. Any thought on this?


I think I would be horrific. 1% is more than enough. If they change it, it shows that the state has no respect for it's own people.


----------



## fishless (Aug 2, 2005)

Sure you could raise it to 3% if there were enough buck tags for all the residents who wanted one to get theres first. I know first hand that I failed to receive a buck tag many years in ND. I think you just opened yourself up to a lot of critisism from people on this site. Wow what a :lame: idea.


----------



## apeterson (Aug 3, 2005)

I hunt with some res and one other NR and all 4 of us did not draw buck tages this year.... too bad... but we are going any way... Guess shooting a buck does not make or break my season, I am not going to lie it will be hard to pass them up this year... guess I will save them for next year!!! Not going to be out there until the last week so save a few does for us!!

Thanks!!!


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

g/o

I guess I look at it like this, That 1% is a guaranteed buck tag to whomever gets it. I do not get any guarantee of a buck tag every year that is what the lottery process is all about management of the deer herd. Meat hunters , and I am one of them like buck tags because of the volume of meat but does IMO eat much better. Currently the ND deer herd is fat toward the doe side, and the management objective is to harvest does to equalize the population.

With all of that said the outfitters of ND reveive buck tags every year and the tags are used as a tool to enhance the income of the outfitters that receive them. Management of the resource is very low on the list of priorities with the issuance of these tags. Giving more tags to outfitters to obtain a greater profit is good for the outfitter and his client but again it throws the management responsibility away from the outfitter onto the resident-nonresident lottery winners. Why should the outfitters not have to harvest any does and help in the management process to the degree that we all do? I understand the clients wish for a trophey. I wonder if outfitters offered "meat hunter" packages if their income would not be the same due to volume of sales vs. cost per trophey. 10 does at $250.00 vs 1 trophey at $2500.00 (numbers are just an example, not intended to be actual)

one thing is different in my situation and that is the ability to apply for gratis tags. I do not get one every year because my brothers and I work it on an every third year basis. Last year we harvested a mature doe with our gratis tag.

Bob


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I guess I don't have a problem with increasing the 1% to 3%.As long as the G/O quota stays at 100 tags.

The problem we will be or are facing is that with the 100 tags to G/O and all non-res. landowners getting gratis tags,there aren't any left for non-res. in the general drawing in some units.They take the whole 1%.This does not allow friends or relatives to draw a tag at all.

Something needs to change....either eliminate the G/O tags,don't give non-res. landowners gratis tags or increase the number of tags available.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Bob, Nowhere did I say anything about outfitter tags. I'm not encouraging this as an outfitter in fact if you could somehow give the extra 2% to former residents that would be fine with me. The problem is unlike the unit you hunt in many units you can get damn near 100% chance of drawing a buck tag. Therefore we have a huge problem with does, and it gets worse every year. The non residents who hunt does for $50.00 are shooting them but we need to shoot more. Seems today everyone is hunting horns and could care less about the meat. Somehow we need to issue less buck tags so the hunters will shoot does. If we don't have enough hunters here then we need to bring some in. Just my opinion Bob and has nothing to do with my bottom line.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Sorry g/o I read the intent of the post wrong please accept my apology.

In light of that fact I would still like to keep it as is and allow NR to purchase any additional tags at the end of the lottery and keep the lottery intact. Wouldn't adding the extra 2% still give them a better chance at a buck tag in the lottery process and still not help to reduce the doe population?

Bob


----------



## deacon (Sep 12, 2003)

If the NR had a chance to get a buck tag, I might come out and buy some additional doe licences. At $50 for a doe tag I am going to pass.

Another option would be $20 for the doe tag and I probably would come out and buy 2 doe tags. Really comes down to having the opportunity to hunt, I just would not like to get one doe tag for $50 and then get a doe right away and my hunt would be done, as the other (lodging, food, gas, and of course beer) costs associated with the trip far out weigh the licence fee.

Just a suggestion and considering the problem with all the does ND might want to consider sooner rather than later.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Bob, I'm trying to start anything here so don't take this the wrong way. There are several units in this state for some reason or another residents from Fargo like to hunt. This is good because in those units you have less of a chance of drawing a buck tag. I believe Field Hunter mentioned earlier he didn't draw a buck tag in the unit he hunts so he will go after baldy this year. In many of the units where you need to eliminate the does we have nearly a 100% chace of drawing a buck tag. If the regular people who hunt those units only get a buck license every 2 years they will be forced to shoot does. Somehow we need to get more does harvested and what we are doing now is not working.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

> In many of the units where you need to eliminate the does we have nearly a 100% chace of drawing a buck tag. If the regular people who hunt those units only get a buck license every 2 years they will be forced to shoot does.


One of the units is mine. this year I was denied a buck tag and issued a doe tag on the second lottery. There may be some problems in the management process but I wonder what effect Gratis has on these areas? I also wonder how much difference it would make if you were allowed to harvest a doe with a buck tag toward the end of the season?

Bob


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

At every G&F meeting I attend, the issue of buck tags comes up. The issue is always the same. I did not get my license or have not had a buck tag for x amount of years!

Our G&F also tell us that most ND hunters are content as long as they have a chance. What you propose would reduce in my unit 30 tags for antlered deer. That may seem small but in doing the math, it would push my chance out almost another season with the weighted lottery. From a self point of view, I am not sure I would be willing to support it. I was the NR who applied 5 years without a buck tag. I then went 2 more years as a Res before getting one. I do know that a buck tag is a coveted prize for a lot of deer hunters, especially those who want to hunt their old stomping grounds. I also know that a lot of landowners that feel the same way. They do use the gratis tags, but like many of us. They want to hunt with friends and family. I do not see this as getting a lot of support.

The problem lies with the greed factor, Ken pointed this out with the cap, on 100 tags. We would soon see the commercial side pushing to increase those number with the increase in available license across the state. One only needs to look north along the Red River to see what unlimited bow tags have done! To much land off limits to even doe hunters. The commercial boys do not want some doe hunter pushing that big dollar buck off the property!


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

I just remembered something also

*Hunting outfitters - White-tailed deer licenses - Fees.*

*The governor shall make one-half of the antlered white-tailed deer licenses and permits allocated to nonresidents under subsection 4 of section 20.1-03-11, up to a maximum of one hundred licenses, available to hunting outfitters licensed in this state.* A hunting outfitter may not purchase or obtain more than five white-tailed deer licenses under this section in any one year. A hunting outfitter shall pay the fee required for a white-tailed deer license sold to outfitters and provided by them to nonresidents for each license purchased under this section. A hunting outfitter may provide to nonresidents, for compensation, big game guiding and outfitting services and one white-tailed deer license per nonresident as provided in this section to hunt white-tailed deer in the manner, at the places, and during the times the governor prescribes by proclamation.

If the number is raised another 2% it logically follows that an attempt the adjust the outfitter quota may follow. I defer to my pervious post for my opinion on this issue.

Bob


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

g/o, you and your :stirpot:. This has 0.0 chance of being accepted by the majority of R sportspersons, until and unless there would be buck tags left over after the second draw - don't think we'll ever see that.

The next thread you start should be titled "So, everyone is thrilled about the 904 - 3.8% - increase in NR waterfowl licenses sold so far this year, right?" :wink:


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

G/o,

Not sarcastic but I'd be willing to go to the 3% licenses to NRs when I'm guaranteed a buck tag every year as a resident. Didn't get one this year....and as soon as we get a big blizzard like back in '93 the deer herd will be knocked way back again.

IMO if we did away with the Outfitters taking 1/2 of the 1% we might not have a problem. Or if we keep the 1/2 to outfitters and raise the number of licenses to 1.5 or 2% we could give the gnf department the right to collect 1/2 of the proceeds of the additional outfitter tags.


----------



## ND decoy (Feb 1, 2003)

I would be totally against this idea. In the badlands it takes about 5-7 years for every muley buck tag.

Deer hunting is such a big thing in this state and is my favorite 2 weekns of the year and until I can get a buck tag every year I am against giving more to non residents. I know this is selfish but I have waited 5-6 years before to get a tag and don't want to go threw that again.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Bob, I disagree again, take a look at how many deer licensed have increased in the the last 15 years both res and nonres. The o/g number has remained the same. Again I'm not advocating that or it would be a whole different topic.

Dan, I agree the sportsmen would not go along with it. But what about are legislature? How many of us have immediate family members that would love to come home to hunt with us. Would you rather see a favorite son bill? Not me, I would like to get some deer licenses in there hands before we have that.

ND decoy, I'm referring to whitetail only


----------



## Chris Schulz (Sep 7, 2004)

i'M GLAD I :beer: HUNT DEER IN MINNESOTA


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

G/O the buck tags have not increased, but doe tags have! Most if not all of the applications coming in from NR hunters are for buck tags! That is the issue. I see your point, but like I said before I was the NR for 5 years. Yes it was frustrating to not draw a buck tag for the farm area, but that was the result of *MY CHOICE TO LIVE OUTSIDE ND!*

While we may not see eye to eye on a lot of things, I do believe you are being short sited on the commercial interest in getting more whitetail tags! We saw the push and roll over last year on mule deer tags and from what I heard a floating of the idea to expand whitetail buck tags.


----------



## MOSSBACK (Jun 10, 2004)

G/O, now we are talking about rewarding people for moving out of state again. This has come up before and It is a joke to reward someone for leaving North Dakota. Favorite son bill or 2% increase in NR tags it is still a slap in the face for people who love North Dakota and live here for the hunting and fishing opportunities. I live for the N.D. rifle season and I am not willing to share it with more NR hunters.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Ron, I've complimented you several times on the way you think. I honestly am impressed by many of your posts. I will disagree with you there has been a increase in both buck and doe licenses in the last 15 years. There also has been more non resident tags issued because they still are allowed 1%. Now the o/g's number has stayed at 100. Although that is not the point I was bringing up here. Because my handle is g/o you and others assume my only motive is to make more money here. That is far from what I'm advocating. If I was joe the farmer, or hank the hardware man most would feel differently on how I feel on things. I like many others in this state would love to have members of our family join us for deer hunting. There has been many different ideas brought to the table one which would allow gratis tags to be transferred to family members who live out of state. Would you object to that also?


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Yep......Sorry to butt in but there is no way a gratis tag should be "transferred". Sorry, there is just too much room for corruption here, can you imagine the price these would bring on the open market. I know, it would be illegal to sell them but I guarantee that they would get sold. The temptation would be too high. Plus, guys that don't even want a gratis tag would suddenly be applying for them just to "give" them away. I think that would be a bad idea.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

djleye, We are talking imediate family members only. If my brother who lives in Colorado wants to come home. He would pay $250.00 for the gratis tag that is available for my land. He would be limited to hunting that land only. Sorry you didn't understand.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

This is just my opinion.....but I agree with G/O as long as the G/O tags don't increase from the 100.

Ron....there has been an increase in buck tags available....not just doe tags.

G/O....I would not agree with transferring gratis to non-res. family members.That discriminates against those who don't own land.Plus those tags would count against the 1%....none would be left in any unit.Is that fair to people who don't have a family here that owns land?

But come on....we are talking about 1% here.1 out of 100.Or 1,000 tags out of 100,000.Even though there aren't that many buck tags issued.We aren't talking about giving away the farm with an increase of 1or 2%.

I see people on here all the time saying they welcome non-res. hunters here to hunt with them.Why not for bucks once in a while.

The argument that G/O would want part of that increase doesn't hold up....they will have bills in the legis. every time to increase their share,whether it's 1% or 5%.We will always be fighting that battle.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Thank You Ken I could not agree with you more. It would be a lot easier to raise it to 3 % and forget the rest.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

No problem g/o, next time I will understand if you say immediate family members. :wink:


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

The Native Son legislation is in a legislative study as we speak, it will be brought up next session and it will be an issue that brings forth emotion on both sides. The increase in the amount of o/g licenses was presented twice last session and defeated twice last session. I expect it again next session It took a great deal of work to get the facts out to educate people on the subject and get them to see the issue other than just being mean to the o/g industry. The Governor if I am not mistaken can increase the number of NR licenses by proclamation just as he has lowered the current cost to 50 bucks for NR tags. I do not agree that if we want to hunt with our family members it has to be a buck tag. they can do it now if they wish, buy a doe license and go hunt. screwing with gratis is opening a pandoras box. Gartis is for landowners, not their brothers sisters, sons, daughters or any other relative unless they are also legal landowners. if you want a gratis license for a family member, sell them some of the farm.

Bob


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Bob....I think the Native Son bill excluded big game draw licenses.


----------



## fishless (Aug 2, 2005)

Good post Bob I was just about to say I go home to hunt with my family (with a doe tag) and its no big deal not having a buck tag. Even though I cant hunt bucks in ND (and would like too) I dont think its fair to take that tag away from a res. for what ever the reason is.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

The original did Ken but it is anyones guess as to what version will come out of the Legislative study. Fishing and big game were being discussed when the session ended.

Bob


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

G/O from your history here, you do not fall into the normal mode of G/O. I fully understood your point as to this not being about you making more money.

We have seen small increases at best in buck tags in most units. But the overall they have not leaped in numbers that the doe tags have. The lion share of tag increase that has occurred is for antlerless deer. Thus even with the increase in doe tags, the number of buck tags available to NR has increased in these units while buck tags for residents have not. I guess I should have stated it that way in the first place.

My point on the NR allotment pressure is really a numbers issue. Today we have roughly 1400 NR tags, of that 100 go to G/O under current law.

Now increase the rate to 3% and you have 4200 tags. The commercial side will then use those figures and attempt to say they are being unfairly discriminated against. I hope you understand what I am getting at now.

It is the same thing they did when they got the increase in mule deer tags. Many legislators do not hunt, or they are in the business of selling off our natural resources beyond a added bonus to the farm income. Increases in available NR tags beyond the current level is going to drive that train right down our throats faster than it currently is happening!


----------



## MOSSBACK (Jun 10, 2004)

G/O, so your main point to this is that you want family members who have moved out of state a better chance at a buck tag?

Lets put this in perspective, if my unit gives out 1500 buck tags but there are 1700 applicants for buck tags in that unit and they give 3% of those tags to NR's and I am one of the unlucky that does not get drawn for a buck tag I am going to be ******. Why should a NR be out hunting for a buck while I live here, pay taxes here. I want to be in North Dakota and I want to be out hunting for a big buck in November but no, some jackass that moved away for a better living in MN, Co, Ca, or wherever gets to. That is just insane.

I do not understand your thinking of why it would be good for North Dakota residents to lose hunting oportunity in their own state.

If North Dakota had better deer numbers and more habitat for a bigger deer population and everyone in the state that wanted a buck tag could be gauranteed a buck tag then I would agree to a 1% lottery for NR's

As long as there are people getting turned down for buck tags there should be no NR's allowed.


----------



## bwnelson (Oct 29, 2002)

2 cents from a NoDak Expat here ...

Background ... mid 30's, grew up in Fargo, got a couple degrees from U.N.D. ... moved to Bemidji with wife about 10 years ago.

Every fall I go back home and hunt the old family homestead by Argusville. Why? NoDak deer taste better than swamp bucks. Plus, it's a long standing friends and family thing. I am fortunate enough to have a couple of sheckles put aside to pay $250 for a NR deer tag. Also lucky enough to have drawn my second NR Buck tag in 3 years. Once again, I bought an doe tag in the second lottery. I'm bringing 3 NR's with me that also bought doe tags. 4 NR hunters, 1 buck tag, 4 doe tags for those of you in Rio Linda.

If I didn't have the buck tag, I'd buy a doe tag like last year and no big deal.

HOWEVER, a solution that benefits the friends and family hunters without helping the G/O's any would be to simply allow party hunting. If NR's are going to be shooting the precious bucks, it will be at the expense and permission of a Res Hunter that they actually know. Works for me.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

> The Governor if I am not mistaken can increase the number of NR licenses by proclamation just as he has lowered the current cost to 50 bucks for NR tags.


Not really, the 1% is fixed by statute. Only in the sense that the Gov by proclamation can raise total licenses can he also effectively increase the number that amounts to 1%. The $50 is also fixed by statue and is $50 as opposed to $100 only because the resident sportspersons in '03 recognized that we need to kill more does and having a lower NR doe fee would help do so and we pushed this very late correction to the bill that got rejiggered the wrong way by some committee at the end of the session - the $50 NR doe tag is good for everyone all around.


----------



## ND decoy (Feb 1, 2003)

To me deer hunting is the best 2 weeks of the year. The years that I don't draw a buck tag seem to put a dark cloud on my whole hunting season.

Making the odds of drawing a buck tag harder doesn't sit very well with me.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> if you could somehow give the extra 2% to former residents that would be fine with me.





> Seems today everyone is hunting horns and could care less about the meat. Somehow we need to issue less buck tags so the hunters will shoot does.


Contradictions in the same post confuse me. I have some reservation about increasing licenses for nonresidents, even for family. I have family out of state also, but they moved because they doubled salaries.

If we would do this like some other states I would say OK. License could be 3% then after they are drawn the hunters could decide if they wanted to go with a guide or free lance. I don't think people should be forced to use a guide. No license should go to guides or outfitters. If they do never let it go beyond 1%.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Ron, I'm glad you understand this is not for finacial reasons I feel this would be good. You are correct that we would go from 1400 to 4200 licenses there would still be 135,800 left for us residents. I guess it may surprise you but I feel a little greedy at 1%. As far as guides using the numbers to ask for more they did that last session already. Personally as far as I'm concerened they could give guides another 500 and they would still ask for more. There are problems with the current system on how they distribute the tags, and until that gets changed it will not matter how many they give us. As far as mule deer tags go, you must be referring to the any deer archery tags. That was the funniest thing I ever witnessed. The NPGOA were asking for a number I can't rember for sure. The wildlife boys said no way, instead the counter offered with 15% of the previous years gun licenses. We all looked at each other in disbelief they were giving us more than we asked for. As long as the heard stays healthy we are much better off this way. This turned out to be a much better deal,thank you.

Mossback, You are already loosing 1% sorry to inform you. You are a very greedy person, and you want a bigger herd and better habitat? We've never had better habitat than we currently have that is why we have 8000 doe tags yet to get rid of. I also find it offensive to call non residents and former residents jackasses

Daniel my freind, I love it when you try to take credit for things. First of all the 50 buck doe licenses never came from the sportsmen. It came from g/o and they were 200 not 100. The reason it got rejiggered in the Senate hearing because a couple of sportsmen opposed it because they felt if nonresidents got that much reduction in there cost residents should get there licenses for 10 bucks. The senate nr committe decided that they would increase it to 100 bucks. As you know from there it went to the house, before the house NR committee conveined g/o,and Sen Erbele met with Jon Nelson. It was to be ammended back to 50 bucks or g/o said kill it. Funny thing game and fish was neutral on this and Mike Donahue was for it. The one guy from Fargo was against it. Only one person spoke in favour of it that was g/o. Lyle Hanson voted against it. I was with it from start to finish and I never saw or heard from any sportsmen.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

g/o, funny how things may appear differently at the top of the hill from opposite bottoms. Take a look back at the bill actions: http://www.state.nd.us/lr/assembly/58-2 ... a2363.html As those working on "the issues" discussed the bill, it seemed like a win/win/win (for a lot of reasons), and we decided to support it (opposed a similar bill - 1311 that went away fast) and we etree'd a pass/yea reccomendation. SNRC, on it's own, amended the fee from $50 to $100. Senate passed. HNRC and then House amended back down to $50. The drop didn't sit well with some senators (especially some of the SNRC Republicans), and the Senate refused to concur - all over the $50 buck difference - and it went to conference. EVERYONE was tired of the hunting bills by then, and it wouldn't have taken much to make this bill go away - but $50 made sense when the bill wat introduced, and it made sense at the end of the session. I know I made some personal calls on the bill to some SNRC members (presumably others did too), and the Senate finally acceded to the House version, i.e. the $50 fee. That's how it looked from my side of the hill. You may not have seen anyone at the hearings, but the etree was a pretty effective force in '03 and the SNRC was much more receptive the the concerns and thoughts of resident hunters in '03. '05, on the other hand, presented more/different challenges.


----------



## Powder (Sep 9, 2003)

I'm sure someone will but please correct me if I'm wrong.

Currently, a resident or nonresident can theoretically get four buck tags all in the same season:

gratis buck tag
archery buck tag
rifle buck tag
muzzleloader buck tag

If I'm correct in this assumption shouldn't this be changed to one or maybe two buck tags of any kind? Maybe this is an area where an effort needs to be made to spread out the buck tags so more people can enjoy them. At this point shooting four bucks in one year is about greed, not meat hunting, QDM or res vs. nr. If people want to shoot four deer they can still buy doe tags.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Powder

You are correct if the stars all align. I would buy a powerball ticket if the ND Big game lottery gave me those odds.

Bob


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Dan, You are so very right the etree was a huge factor in the 03 session. We knew all about it and had to work hard when it wasn't in our favour. I would like to thank you for all your help on this bill. Just goes to show you that o/g's and sportmen can work together.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

No that's not correct.The most bucks you can shoot in 1 year is 3.

You cannot have a buck rifle tag and then shoot another buck with a gratis.

I know someone here at school that said....if you get a buck tag in the drawing.....your gratis tag will be stamped...DOE ONLY.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

I stand corrected.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

Ken is right.

You can not get a rifle buck tag in the lottery and use your gratis tag on a buck.


----------



## Powder (Sep 9, 2003)

Maybe not 100% correct but you get my point. Whether it's 2 or 3 buck tags shouldn't everyone get one tag before others get multiple buck tags? And yes, I do bowhunt and have a muzzleloader so I'm not biased against either of those.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Powder you should forfeit your extra buck tags to set a good example for the rest of us.... :lol:


----------



## Powder (Sep 9, 2003)

I already have. I didn't get drawn for a buck tag but did receive a doe tag. This year I chose not to bowhunt in ND. To many other things going on.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Powder lives in Minnesota....you can only tag one deer,even if you have a rifle,muzzleloader,and bow license.

BUT......

You can get around that by party hunting and shoot as many as others are willing to tag for you.So Minnesota allows you to shoot a lot more than is legal here in ND.


----------



## Powder (Sep 9, 2003)

That's true but not relevant to this discussion. It's flat out greedy to try and tag three bucks when you know that many others can't get even one tag. It comes down to a fairness issue.

I'd be all for someone being able to shoot three bucks in a year if the population allowed it. But when the same complaints come up year after year about not getting drawn for a buck tag (and I've heard this directly from Ken W) why allow some people to get more than one?


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

Powder said:


> It's flat out greedy to try and tag three bucks when you know that many others can't get even one tag.


Thats not true, any resident can buy a bow tag. So every resident can get at least one buck tag. Now not as many people bowhunt, but thats there choice.


----------



## dieseldog (Aug 9, 2004)

How about we reduce the number of G/O's by 100%, instead. :beer:


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

:lol: I concur!!! :beer:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I am not a fan of a seperate muzzleloader season.To me that is shooting 2 bucks with a gun.If you want to shoot one with a muzzleloader....do it during the rifle season with your rifle tag.To that extent I agree with Powder......The muzzleloader season is taking away buck tags from people who did not get drawn during the rifle season.

BUT.....shooting a buck with a bow is different....and I think Minn is wrong by not allowing you to do that and also one with a rifle....different kinds of weapons.


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

Ken,

You can shot a buck with a bow and rifle in the same year.

That is why they still have party hunting!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

PSDC....

I said you can't tag more than 1 can you?If you shoot a buck with your bow and tag it,you can't do the same thing with a rifle can you?

You can shoot as many as other people will put their tags on.

The biggest problem with Minnesota is.... "if it's brown it's down"mentality.Which is a direct result of party hunting.If you could only shoot one legally....you would be more likely to pass up the small stuff.

Minnesota does nothing to manage it's herd except issue extra doe permits.It does not even try to manage the buck harvest.So it is...."if I don't shoot that little buck,the next guy over the hill will."


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

Correct Ken, only 1 buck per tag.

But, I know more wives and 75+ year old
moms that get a buck every year!

I am still trying to figure out how someone
can harvest a buck and be at turkey bingo
at the same time!

"Brown it's down" don't have enough daylight
to get involved in that discussion. Only one
word, politics! Ok, maybe two, money!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

"But, I know more wives and 75+ year old 
moms that get a buck every year!"

Lots of these here also.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Ken W wrote


> I am not a fan of a seperate muzzleloader season.To me that is shooting 2 bucks with a gun.


I agree 100% especialy with the new muzzle loaders. It's not like the old ball and cap from 15 years ago. You can even mount scopes. Not much different than the Ruger #1 :sniper:

How much snow so far? All we are getting is rain, so far........


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

It's snowing,but the ground isn't frozen....so it is melting as fast as it hits the ground.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

The other thing about MN is that the seasons are so short in some areas that people tend to be less picky. There is more of an urgency that this might be the only buck I see so might as well shoot it. Two days seems to me to be too short. If the season was a week long you might not panick and shoot the first deer you see.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Dan Bueide said:


> Not really, the 1% is fixed by statute. Only in the sense that the Gov by proclamation can raise total licenses can he also effectively increase the number that amounts to 1%. The $50 is also fixed by statue and is $50 as opposed to $100 only because the resident sportspersons in '03 recognized that we need to kill more does and having a lower NR doe fee would help do so and we pushed this very late correction to the bill that got rejiggered the wrong way by some committee at the end of the session - the $50 NR doe tag is good for everyone all around.


Dan, Ken et al

I read all of the previous posts before responding, and would like to offer some insight from a former native son now living out of state. Personally, I believe the lottery and how it is currently set up is very fair. When I was a resident a couple of years ago, I couldn't agree more with all of the residents posting here about keeping the deer hunting lottery chances intact. I think it is only fair that now since I decided that the grass was greener in a different pasture, that I pay the consequences with a lessened buck tag chance.

That being said, I would like to comment on something I mentioned before in a previous thread. I would like to see a bill in the ND legislature next session that addresses 3rd license drawings for Native sons. I would like to see the price for a non-res DOE only tag drop to $20.

Not everyone who leaves the state becomes rich immediately after acquiring a new address. Many native sons such as myself get discouraged with the high price of licenses. I have shelled out around $250 this year for licenses alone! Factor in the 2 or 3 trips I make back to ND each fall at a cost of around $2200, and you begin to see how much this can hurt young people such as myself who don't have the big $$ means that your "typical" NR has when hunting.

Let's face it. If I am coming home to ND to hunt, and am willing to purchase a NR 3rd lottery doe tag, chances are I'm not some big $$ NR looking for horns to hang. I'm a former resident who has family/friends he wants to go home and hang with. I want to maximize my time in the field and possibly purchase 2 or 3 doe tags to maximize my time in the field and justify my costs. If I go home this weekend to hunt, I could in theory be done shooting a doe in 1 hour. Because the price of a lousy doe tag is $55, I only purchased one. Now for the benefit of both me (and the health of the ND deer population), wouldn't it make more sense for a license to be $20, and allow me to purchase 3 licenses? That would give the state an extra $10 bucks, allow the herd to be further culled, give me a chance to hunt multiple days with my family. A win/win/win proposition all the way around. Why would that be controversial with the legislature?

Thoughts?

Thanks for listening to my logic...

Ryan


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Ryan,

INHO, your proposal is very reasonable. In fact, when Sen. Lyson was pushing the favored son bill last session, I sat down with him the day of the waterfowl bill hearing and tee'd up some of those very same ideas with him. Rather than a sweeping favored son bill that would essentially grant resident status for all or most purposes (cost, hunting day restrictions, etc.) as he was proposing, why not structure it to blow a few specific kisses like R prices for certain licenses, an extra week on one upland license (which would cover opener, Thanksgiving and Christmas) and (gulp) if we could ever get a waterfowl bill passed, some sort of preference on those licenses? Those types of things could be done and would address about 90% of the wishes of the expatriates and their resident families and wouldn't upset the apple cart in any material way.

Dan

p.s. His bill was in the last throws of death at the time, and he was pretty torked about the whole thing and wasn't particularly interested in talking about any these more-subtle approaches. We'll see a more-comprehensive favored son bill from him again next session I suspect. If anyone knows him well, perhaps you could reach out to him with the idea of a more-subtle approach, which would be the win/win/win Ryan is suggesting.


----------

