# Lawsuit Discussed on WCCO Radio



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

How many of you heard the discussion of the lawsuit on WCCO radio yesterday at 4:00 PM? Unfortunately, most of you had probably left the Twin Cities early in the morning after the WCHA tournament and didn't hear the program.

Chris Niskanen of the St. Paul Pioneer Press, Tony Dean, and Ron Shara discussed the lawsuit. They did not take any phone calls from the public. Tony's opening remarks made reference to the "small, but very effective, group in North Dakota that is using the Internet to rally North Dakota hunters to push for nonresident limitations." Now, who do you suppose that is? Thank you, Chris Hustad!

I thought that Tony and Ron were supportive of nonresident rights to hunt in neighboring states, but they hedged by saying that they had gone back and forth on the issue and didn't really like one state suing another. Human energy and money could be better spent addressing other more important conservation issues.

I respect Tony very much and think he is the foremost conservation voice in the country. But, he did try to equate South Dakota pheasant hunting with North Dakota waterfowling by saying that there were 134,000 pheasant hunters out on opening day in South Dakota and only 30,000 nonresident waterfowlers allowed in North Dakota. I thought that that was an apples and oranges compairison. (There are a lot more field acres to hunt than there are pothole acres.) Tony also did not say anything about South Dakota's limit of only 4,000 nonresident waterfowlers. (If Minnesota was going to sue another state, they should have gone after South Dakota, not North Dakota.)

Tony and Chris Niskanen really did tear into the farm lobby and the state legislatures from all three states for not being able to stand up to agriculture's efforts at wetland draining and habitat degradation. They pointed out that North Dakotan's should not feel too smug about how good they have been in protecting wetlands from drainage. They think that if moisture and soils were the same in the Dakotas (resulting in more production per acre - similar to Minnesota's), there would have been just as much drainage over the years.

Tony was very pessimistic about the future of waterfowling. Little or degraded habitat means fewer ducks.

The amount of area in this country where there still are a few ducks is shrinking. When the radio program was over yesterday, I was left with this analogy: It is like a shrinking waterhole in the African desert. All the animals (duck hunters) seeking water go to fewer and fewer waterholes (North Dakota). Pretty soon they are all around the last remaining waterhole (North Dakota). That's a pretty bleak picture.

That's the message that those at this website are trying to get out to the North Dakota legislature and those nonresidents who are willing to listen. Keep up the fight. Losing the fight means that all the country's watefowlers will be sitting around the last waterhole in North Dakota waiting to shoot ducks that will never come.


----------



## tb (Jul 26, 2002)

I'm so sick of Tony Dean's negativity I could puke.


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

Tb- What are you talking about? Seriously, a one sentence post doesn't say anything?

What is it about his negativity that upsets you? Do you disagree with his view about the future of waterfowling?


----------



## tb (Jul 26, 2002)

Absoutely. He's been writing about the "end" of duck hunting in Dakota Country for the last 15 years. I'm so sick of his monologues. 90 percent of what he says is crap. Ron Schara too. I remember an article of his years ago that went on and on and on about the end of duck hunting. His premise was that 'the future of waterfowling will rise or fall on the wings of the canada goose.' Those guys are alarmists and a couple of reverse barometers, if you ask me. Duck hunting's been pretty decent the last few years, if you ask me. Could it be better? Sure, but its been pretty damn good. Let 'em knock themselves out in MN and SD if ND hasn't done what they like. Nothing's more pathetic than listening to Tony Dean, or his camerman, on the radio interviewing some two-bit Sheldon Schlect wannabe guide-outfitter about the great hunting somewhere in NoDak. YUK.


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

Thank you tb. Now we have something to talk about.

Please don't let the last several years be an indicator of the overall health of the North American waterfowl population. I think that a lot of hunters and waterfowl experts, including Tony Dean, agree that the waterfowl projections of the last several years have been grossly inflated. North Dakota has raised a lot of ducks in those years because of the exceptional water conditions. But, those locals are blown out of the state earlier and earlier each year. ND duck hunting hasn't been so great after October 10th for the last several years. The mid-season doldrums are lasting longer each year. It ain't what it used to be (1970s).

You can think what you want about Tony's programs and his connections with guides, but you have to agree that DU and Delta Waterfowl, as well as Tony and many others believe that the picture isn't that rosy.

By the way, are you in favor of nonresident restrictions? Why? Is it to preserve local ducks for local hunters or to protect the bird populations?


----------



## tb (Jul 26, 2002)

Perry,

I understand what you are talking about. I used to read my DU magazine cover to cover, now I do the same with Delta.

To answer your questions, I am for nr restrictions. Primarily I support them to help slow commercialization of the sport. I have no problem with nonresidents freelancing. I kind of enjoy seeing pop out with his son, teaching him the sport. I don't care where they are from. What I hate is the out of state landgrabbers that lease or that are clients of outfitters. As far as protecting birds, in my opinion liberal limits have been a big part of the commercialization problem. I remember the old days when the limit was 1 canada and 5 snows. Or when the duck limit was 3, with 2 mallards. If the limits were that low now, I think a lot of nr's would stay home. It would be better for the resource too. I think the feds have been way too liberal the last few years. Most of us resident hardcores would hunt just as much. I remember when the limit was one canada. Man, you've never seen birds decoy like that. No pressure at all, you could suck a ton of birds into the spread with just a dozen supermags, so what if you could only shoot one (the upside was that you only had to clean one too). How many nr's would pay $300-$600 per day to shoot 1 canada and 2 mallards? My guess is not many. That was the beauty of the Hunter Pressure Concept. Just my $.02.


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

Thanks for the response. I now understand where you are coming from.

I think your heart is in the right place. We gotta stop the spread of all the commercialization of the sport. We agree about that.


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

Fuel costs may also discourage the long distance NR this upcoming season with talk of $2.00+ per gallon, the freelancer that likes to do alot of scouting will feel the pinch, a trend to stay put and wait for them could occur.


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

Anyone that thinks we do not have a problem with our duck population should of been hunting back when, A buddy of mine and I shot limits during the late 1930's, He had a single shot 28 gauge and I a 410. Watching the demise of our local ducks in the more recent years has not been pleasant. Some of the back waters in the country where I live used to be teeming with local ducks that hatched out broods and returned to the same places year after year. now very few ducks are nesting on the same places. Now when a group of hunters find a place like that they stay with it until they have it cleaned out. I will admit that the arrival of racoon and fox during the late thirtys has not helped matters any. Just my opinion.


----------



## Lancer_EVO (Mar 25, 2004)

:beer: Just for the record I am not trying to get anyone all worked up about anything, but I live in Minnesota, and I can not stand this whole idea that this state, or any other, should be sueing over things like this. Last year (2003) was the first year that I went over the border for some good fun waterfowl hunting- thank you North Dakota. I think that if you do not live in a state that you are want to hunt, then you should have to pay more than the people that live. And there also should be some times when you are not allowed to hunt inorder to give the "local" a chance to hunt their own land. My hunting partner and I took the split week to hunt and even though, and we where dumb and didn't look up the hunting seasons for ND, the second weekend we came out was ND's deer season. But we are not ones to just start hiking onto someones place without first asking. Anyway just thought that I would stick my two pennies in, so there you have it.

John


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

Lancer,

Welcome to the Board.

By the way, how was your duck hunting that weekend when the deer season opened?


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Perry,
Check your messages.
Thanks
Bert.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

I to remember the late 60's and early 70's thjere were ducks everywhere but here i go again, Things change, only the changes need to be fine tuned more often, we had 29,000+ NR hunters and i think Indy had 30,000 +Resident hunters in his numbers, if the success rate was 70% filled there bag limit(just a guess) that is alot of ducks no matter how you look at it. Management needs to keep up with the times, and the Gov needs to quit pocketing special interest money from (G/O's) so he can come up with the right numbers for them.

I am just using the above numbers a hypothetical example


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Great thread!! It is refreshing to see residents and nres. on the same page when it comes to consrevation or preservation of waterfowl. :thumb:

tb, I'm with you on Tony, he promotes conservation to the ninth degree, then he says come to NoDak if you want to have the best waterfowling ever. Promoting lots of duck and geese and liberal limits!! :******: 
If it is as bad as he says it is he should pass on the buck$ and think about the ducks, and not drive more people to this "one last place" to hunt.
He has not helped ND in the least from a resident hunters point of view!!

Drakes only, dead hens don't lay eggs and they ruin a good picture!! dd:


----------

