# Times Change



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

The "Question for all hunters" thread got off track so I started this to continue the train of thought

MRN
I agree with you. Two years ago I would have been a candidate for a blanket party and promptly exported from ND, and I am sure some here feel that way today. I just have a hard time understanding why ND outdoor issues have to get to critical mass before the majority speaks. ie. "pheasantgate". Hunters showed up at standing room only advisory board meetings, voiced their opinion and it made a difference.

What has happend with outdoor issues from that point to today? G/O operations have grown from a few to 400+ that are licensed. Who knows how many are not licensed, remember if you want to G/O on your own property you do not need a license. Land leasing for hunting is going on all over the state now by G/O's and anyone else that can afford it. Pay to hunt has taken over some of the prime habitat areas in the state. The NDGF has been silenced by political lobbying. Hunting issues have become East vs. West. Non-resident hunters have increased. Just to name a few.

Most of the changes that have negativly impacted ND freelance hunters have been debated in the legislature by a few of the "old timers" on this site. (sorry guys I am not refering to age). Why? Why is it that todays issues do not get the attention that they got a few years ago. One reason is the other guys learned from Pheasantgate. They have become very good at slipping their issues in under the radar with their lobbiests, instead of the old frontal attack. bottom line is we need to get the momentum back, or accept the pay to play concept and life goes on.

If you are reading this and and are concerned about the future of ND outdoor issues and wondering what to do here are a few suggestions.

1. Write a letter to your legislator and voice your opinion. If you do not feel comfortable doing it yourself get some bud's together and write it as a group.

2. Join a sportsmens club, get involved, create some habitat, release some birds, Whatever blows up your skirt 

3. Get the youth you know involved. Todays young people have a world of information at their finger tips, and they are very good at using it.

4. Join the ETREE on this site and when you receive a notice act on it! do not think the other guy is going to do it for you.

5. VOTE, I was so bummed when they reported that in the last ND election less than 20% of residents voted. several races were decided by 2 or 3 votes. We have to do better than that.

6. Leave the land you hunt better than you found it.

I have been on my soap box long enough. please respond I would like to know what you would do to get people involved.

Have a good one!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Bob, I sure have seen a lot of land that was freely accessible disappear over the last 15 years and the rate of land loss is rapidly increasing. I was shocked when I read the amount of lands lost to the G/O leasing industry in some areas that Dick Monson outlined in one of his posts a while back. All your suggestions are good ones and I think you nailed it our biggest enemy is apathy, we don't vote and when things get bad we then wonder why. However I don't think the money is defeatable, I hope I'm wrong but I sure haven't seen any evidence of it. Its well worth trying though. Its one of the rare things in my life that I've given up on. I plan to move to a place bordering a National forest, hope I can hunt it until I'm too old to hunt, and stop worrying about it. Last year I was hunting some Plots land across the road from a guideing outfit/ lodge in Southeast ND and one of the people from there actually came up to me to warn me not to shoot any of "their" pheasants. I was the first time in a very long time I seriously considered killing someone, but I kept my cool and didn't say or do anything just ignored him and hunted the spot. He moved down the road and sat there and watched me. It ruined the whole week for me, I just couldn't get what has happened to North Dakota out of my mind. I really thought I would get old before this would happen.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

12


----------



## Miller (Mar 2, 2002)

> Little things go along ways.


Ya,like a $10,000/year lease right?

Sorry couldn't resist.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

g/o...alot of people who don't post don't want to be bothered with our trivial hunting pursuits...talking nice and saying the right things doesn't cover up what you do to the freelance hunters. :eyeroll:


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

"The times, they are a changin'......". I love that one in the hunting debates, and its kissing cousin "The free market must reign...."

The "times" are changing for the ND hunting landscape. The job of the people of ND and their elected representatives is to decide if that's good for ND, all of ND, in which case we should just let the current trends and market forces continue. On the other hand, if these market forces are creating a situation that will hurt ND in the short run by pushing critters out of and through ND quicker and in the long run by fueling the exclusivity rush that will eventually result in less hunters using more land and less overall economic benefit, and create one more lifestyle reason to leave ND or not move to ND, then ND needs to step in and make the necessary adjustments.

By now, there should be no questions as to the cause and effect of high hunter numbers and the other hunting issues both in the short term, or where ND hunting will be in 10-15 years if restrictions aren't adopted. The only question for the people to decide is whether that's good for ND or not.

Not unlike the ag situation. "Free market?" - "The times, they are a changin'?". Maybe, but how many ND's think it would be good for ND and would advocate that all ag subsidies should evaporate and that we should revert to a pure market system? Would it be good for ND, especially rural ND, if all tillable ground in ND was owned and operated by, say, 25 mega-operators? That's the way "the market" is headed. ND beef producers have reaped the benefits of import restrictions on Canadian beef (the Mad Cow thing has been milked for all it's worth, and then some), and I haven't heard a one of them who's anxious to see the restrictions lifted. I'm not either. I'd rather pay more for by burger and ribeye and see the ND beef producers benefit - it's a small price to pay and it's good for ND.

There are many instances where market forces and trends are curtailed or checked "for the greater good". ND needs to decide if ND hunting is another example of where "the market" needs checking, but one shouldn't, on principal, demand "the market" control in some instances when that's the last thing they want in others.

So, what's best for ND, all of ND, in the long run? Is ND, all of ND, better off with a hunting scenario like it had five years ago or one like Texas has now? If the former, action is required. If the latter, sit back and watch, because it's well on its way and nothing more need be done to make it happen.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Wow, lock a few threads, the place cools down, wide agreement starts to break out - gives me the warm fuzzies.

Part of the problem of "getting involved" and "voicing an opinion" is making concrete proposals for action. Saying that hunting is going downhill isn't enough. The important part is stating what specific action should be taken. Determine if the legislator will support that action. That's all legislators do - support or oppose proposed actions.

What are the crucial actions? For me, 1) end the animal brokering that is so politely called "fee hunting", and 2) control NR's and the effect of their unlimited $$ on natural resource management in this state (and 3) ban cell phone use while driving). Others may differ in their opinions. If so, we hopefully educate/pursude them of their error, in hopes that they eventually support the action (and likewise educate their legislator).

That is what we are trying to do here: consider actions, consider outcomes, sharpen the pursuasiveness of the arguments, consider the opposing arguments.

M.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> 3) ban cell phone use while driving).


???? WHY?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

12


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Is it really better to stand and watch and do nothing? I don't think any of us want to turn back time. It is a waste of energy try to think that way. We can only deal with the situations we are faced with today.

g/o,
Nice spin but the size of the local ND population has nothing to do with the direction our hunting has/will take. Unless you have forgetten people are not stuck to hunting within 100 miles of their home. The have gun will travel crowd has already shown there willingness to come to ND no matter where they live.

If you already believe the rural towns are going to get smaller why do you always say that you are trying to save the small town through hunting? If its already inevitable then why fight it. Sit back relax and watch the show. Probably because you care. Why will most of us do whatever we can to save ND hunting from going down the crapper. Because we care.

The top heavy population theory is all good and fine except I may have to wait 20 years for all you old farts to start dying. In the meantime half my life has passed me by.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

o/g,

Hunting in any form is not going to save any rural community - Mother Nature and habitat cycles won't allow. Ten year-round, non-seasonal FTE's would mean more to most rural communities on the whole than the seasonal visitors, and that's what all ND's should be working towards - a permanent fix. And the exclusive, Texas-style form of hunting will eventually help drive the last nails in the coffin, when few (o/g/buy/lease) under-use much land and most either tolerate to some degree public or other readily avialable over-crowed, under-crittered areas or just flat-out give up on hunting and/or ND. Short term thinking, versus long-term.

Would I be willing to "freeze frame" 5-6 years ago? You bet I would! Total hunter numbers, private reserves and o/g's were starting to "hurt", but good opportunities were much more consistantly and readily available with effort. I look back at about that time, maybe '97-'98'ish, as what was and could be a sustainable, reasonable sharing and use of the resources from virtually all angles, based upon hunter numbers and access conditions relative to habitat.

Texas' hunting problems probably largely came from Texans. Ours are coming from all over, including some ND's. Same symptoms, causes and problems. Demand outstipping supply = exclusivity.

Youth and hunting? Your model takes over, I'm pretty sure I know a 7 year old and a 2 year old that will never buy a hunting license. The description rich MAN'S game is accurate. Wonder how the average age of, say, all Hettinger County pheasant hunters has changed over the last ten years?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

12


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Not all guides and outfitters are going to survive if we get a drought or a tough winter but we will still be stuck with the same situation. The guides and outfitters that do survive will be the ones who can lock up the good hunting.

Both hunters and G&O's will go down but what makes you think the ratio is going to change if we have less game. 50 groups of hunters trying to hunt on 10 quarter sections is the same as 5 groups trying to hunt on 1. There are still to many people trying to chase the given amount of game.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

og,

we are simply in another paradigm these days where certain comparisons aren't valid or helpful.

Even in the "gloriest" days of waterfowl hunting in the 70's, we never had more than 10k nr's, most often 7-8k. Comparable total hunter numbers, but the mix was vastly different such that birds got more rest. And snows attracted a lot of attention back then. Now it's ducks, ducks, ducks, all-day, every day.

Also we've never seen the number or scope of o/g/buy/sell of today. O/g numbers have increased more than 500% since '90 or at any time before then. Sure we'll drop hunter and o/g numbers when we go dry, but that won't affect exclusivity. In fact, exclusivity will be felt the worst when we go dry. Before some bow out, everybody and their brother, including your industry, will be fighting like dogs for the greatly fewer, more concentrated productive areas that haven't already been rendered exclusive. Dry, unless it's a realy long one (which would be really bad for a lot of other reasons), will be worse than wet.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

I fnd this discussion with you guys interesting. One thing that never came out about g/o, now or in your PMs. The land that you own and manage for hunting, is it all your land or do you lease additional land for your business? I think there is a definite difference in whether a guide outfits on his own land or tries to lease the surrounding area.

Where are you located, which part of the state? I believe you have to make a distinction also as to what area you are in. Do you have many resident and NR paying hunters or are they predominantly NR. Do you believe the area of the state you are in would not see resident hunter numbers increase if the availabilty of land was increased, thereby increasing the use of small town bars, gas stations, restaurants, hotels, etc. Many of us, myself included, used to make the pilgrimage to the SW every year and some many times. Yes I'm from the East but have roots n the western part of the state. It just became a matter of economics. The vast majority of us can not afford to hunt at fee operations...plain and simple....contrary to the opinon of many westerners of people from the east....we're simply not that wealthy. I've mentioned before that if a small town wanted to increase business all they would have to do would be to advertise they have good hunting and get together with the land owners in the area to work out a way to get the land access relaxed a bit. This probably would work to the detriment of the G/O in the area but IMO would do more for the local economy. You would have more hunters, resident hunters and hunters from the western part of MN using an areas resources and using them much more frequently, than just the select few that a middleman (G/O) would bring in.

You as a landowner should still be able to do what you want with your own land. You evidently, through your own words, have made great additions to your own land in terms of increased habitat and food plots, etc. I think that's great and wish more ranchers would make those improvements bcause it's overall good for the resource. I don't however think that a G/O should be able to gobble up as much land (land that he does not own) as possible where other habitat exists just to satisfy the demands of visiing big $$$ NR hunters and I hope that the legilature does something to stop this in 2005.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

As long as free market principles for access apply the wealthy will win this, land access like everything else in our country will be sold to the highest bidder and thats NRs because access in your state is pitfully cheap compared to other places. Even IF we pay what we would pay in our own states we would still do it because your game populations are so much better. People are currently buying hunting land in my county for 15-20 thousand /acre and thats just to shoot a deer. Leases in Hunting clubs can be several thousand per year/man. I have co-workers that routinely spend thousands of dollars / year to deer hunt. I just don't think many people in North Dakota will be able to compete with this type of bidding war. So you have to manipulate the market, *your very best option would be to eliminate non-res hunters period and that should be your goal.*
Unfortunately the last time I suggested this everybody jumped down my throat( because while you won't admit it you all have NR relatives and its only some other NRS you want to restrict) so I've given it some thought and maybe you should get some kind of compromise ledgislated where G/O's must make their land available to residents on weekends for free with regs similar to the plots. This would force G/Os to plan their clients stay during the week ( if their clients want exclusivity) and open all the land in the state to residents on the weekends when most of them hunt. GOs could still have their customers and I don't think most of their customers would begrudge the residents have the access, I know I wouldn't. I don't think there is enough resident pressure to really have any harmful effect on the land the guide/commecial hunting outfits have tied up. If the pressure was too great then there could be zones set up just like you propose for NR duck hunters now. And I know its coming up so no *I'm not saying all farmers have to let any resident hunt on their land *only the ones that sell hunting rights would be included. If they game the system fine the hell out of them, make the fine high enough that it just wouldn't be worth it. By the way I am using the words I and we to loosely describe NRS. BobM will pay to hunt and hire a guide when hell freezes over uke:


----------



## Goldy's Pal (Jan 6, 2004)

> *your very best option would be to eliminate non-res hunters period and that should be your goal.
> *


Thanks Bob. I don't like Georgia, maybe it would be the best option for congress to pass a bill to eliminate it from the rest of the states. Managing the NR numbers better and doing something about the land grabbing from G/O's might be the realistic approach. Just my opinion.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Goldy put down your crying towel :eyeroll: I was talking in theoretical terms we both know there isn't the political will to eliminate NRS. And it would be the best option in the context of the argument of derailing the G/Os march toward locking up all the land. What will you do when that happens and it will happen if something isn't done. Maybe my suggestion should be to open all their land to Residents and NR free lancers on the week ends. And why the hell don't you like Georgia? We like Minnesotan's Boiled or fried


----------



## snowflake (Apr 2, 2004)

I've said it before,and I'll say it again,there needs to be a lottery,with a non-refundable regristration fee that could be used for habitat or public hunting land  What is so hard about that :-? Non-res would be controlled by #'s of licences available in certain zones.Res. hunters would have first preference for the licences,g/o's would have no quota,only guiding hunters already licenced through the system!Seems pretty darn simple to me


----------



## Goldy's Pal (Jan 6, 2004)

Sounds like you have it all figured out Bob. That NR voice from Georgia should pull some serious weight come 2005. If you realize your statement to eliminate all NR's isn't politically possible why do you even drag it into the conversation to begin with??? Crying towel?? Get back into the "Politics" forum Bob where your opinions might carry an ounce or two.


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

bobM

15-20 thousand dollars an acre? I think you conveniently added a zero onto that number for effect. Anyone spending that kind of dough per acre (for hunting land) is being taken for a ride. You can easily find hunting land for under 1000/acre in GA. Maybe that amount for a home site or business site, but hunting land?

Do you honestly believe most landowners in GA would allow hunting on their land if it were not for access fees? Trust me, they wouldn't.

Don't you know how much attention landowners spend in the southeast on wildlife management because of the added income potential from access fees? Take away that incentive, and many landowners manage strictly for board feet/acre with little regard for the wildlife.

Go ahead and boycott the system, claiming that you will not pay for your recreation. Thank God there are thousands of other sportsmen in Georgia that realize that quality habitat doesn't "just happen" and has a price, and gladly pay for it. And no, they are not all "wealthy".

Your friends that have the leases-- does the landowner plant foodplots, have a bunkhouse and permanant stands, and mantain the roads on the property? Most leases for that price have these things. Do you think that stuff happens without a price, Bob?

Eliminate non-res hunters Bob? Really? From a Georgian? I thought that kind of greed was only found elsewhere.

Most states in the southeast gladly welcome all hunters into their borders, for all game animals-- turkey, deer, gators, etc... Very little of this non-res rubbish, and the hunting is still great even for the freelancer.

You just have to quit complaining on the computer and scout


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Goldy lighten up will you I was just kidding about the crying towel, boy you guys are awful sensitive sometimes.
Widgeon I said in My county which is very close and and convient to Atlanta and that is the going rate I know because I just sold some and that kind of money isn't any big deal to many people around here. And no food plots,stands ect are provided by the land owner its the hunters responsibility the land is raw land no improvements basically pine and oak forest. And and in Georgia you cannot find land for under a thousand an acre even way away from the population centers, those days are gone. I know that for a fact because I'm looking for some right now. One thing you're not considering is that the way land values have risen here its an excellent investment so they don't mind paying for it. They know they will get their money back with a handsome profit when the growth catches up. I have bought and sold a lot of land and built a lot of houses in Georgia in the last twenty years I know the land values. 
The eliminate the NR hunters point is the only real way to stop this progression but I know its not doable and I was just using this as a means to make my real point that because its not doable some compromise has to happen before its too late. At least I came up with and idea instead of just *****in.
As for states in the southeast welcoming hunters thats true, buy your lease and hunt all you want, free lance hunting in Georgia is almost non-existant except on public and state owned land. 
And Goldy my opinion carries just as much weight as yours in North Dakota so don't tell me what forum I should go to, just because you live next door doesn't make you anymore a res than I. Why don't you spend your time coming up with some posible alternatives instead of attacking not only my opinion, but my right to make it in this forum. At least I'm trying to come up with some ideas.


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

> I have bought and sold a lot of land and built a lot of houses in Georgia in the last twenty years I know the land values.


So you, a developer, have learned enough about managing wildlife resources while building subdivisions to make some recommendations? As you bulldoze trees to put in houses, does it suddenly hit you that non-resident hunters are the enemy of outdoor recreation?

I found some georgia land in 4 minutes that's just over 1000/acre. I bet they'd take a 1000/acre offer.

http://www.landandfarm.com/lf/s/45/53653.asp

you can thank me later

widg


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Thats a good price and I admit that I'm surprised. But its about 85 miles from the area that I'm looking and probably two miles or less from my hunting partners home( I can't believe of all the places you found that). I'm looking for land that I can live on as well as hunt and hes moving out of there because Sparta is a very poor all black city with a bad school system. And please don't read anything into the black comment I have plenty of black friends and neighbors, its the school system, and the poverty of the area that brings the land values down. The area around that piece is all rundown trailers with torn screens and pitbulls in the yard if you get my drift. Theres a few that keep nice places but its mostly a rough place. Thats a good price his 100 acres is for sale for $2200.00 per acre, and hes is literally next door to that piece, at first I thought it was his. And even in Sparta you can't find land to hunt for the asking its all hunting clubs and posted signs.
The developing I've done has not been big small lot subdivision type stuff the smallest lots I've ever made were three acres in an area where the other lots are 1 or less, most have been 8-10 acres and I always try to do it with minmal impact and wildlife being considered and I'll admit that I have always labored over my love of wild life and the develoment I've done. 
Lastly I've never said Nrs are the enemy of outdoor recreation I said they are the customers of the guides and the money behind the leasing industry in ND. Even people from the cities such as Fargo don't need guides they just need access to places to hunt. 
Thus getting back to my original point there will have to be some type of compromise, because the reality is the NRs and the guides are not going away and I've seen many posts by people claiming to be GOs saying that they let people hunt for the asking if thats true then put it in writing and let the residents hunt it on the weekends and do their guiding during the week when the residents are at work. At least its a starting point towards some type of better plan and could be part of a greater plan with other ideas instead of *****in at each other. Like Goldy says save that for the political forum :lol:


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

12


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

12


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

There are many farmer groups that have either tried or are trying now to create coops to help them market their crops...without a middleman. The farmer becomes the middleman and thus repats a larger reward for his product. My plan says about the same thing...why do we need a middleman, G or O, when the communities themselves could do the same thing and possibly reap much larger rewards. I don't have a problem with Outfitters on their own land such as yours. There'll always be a need for some hunters to have a guided hunt but the rest of us, the vast majority, don't need your services, we just need access to land and that could be achieved if the community wanted more hunters. I've traveled the small communities on business for 25 years. Yes there are full hotels, etc. in the beginning of the season but twards the end they are not. With the great amount of excess roosters that some areas of the state carry over every winter why can't the outfitters offer a way for resident and NR freelacers to access the land at a greatly reduced cost when no ne else is here. They would be helpng not only the small towns but the farmers. I hear over and over about the resentment between the west and the east in ND...it goes both ways. Get the land opened up and the east will meet the west....keep the Outfitters in control of the good areas and it will only get worse. I didn't travel to the leg sessions n 2003 but I will be making every effort to get there this time in 2005. As far as I can tell the issues have not gone away and it should be a very interesting session.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bobm

I have not thought this through completely, but will throw it out for thought. You know how the Fish and Wildlife does waterfowl surveys each year and uses that information for hunting regulations and bag limits. I think the state should limit nonresidents to about 15,000 then each fall do a random survey of posted vs. nonposted land. If 70 percent of private land is posted then multiply 15,000 times .30 for a total of 4,500 nonresidents allowed. Only ten percent private land posted gets 13,500 nonresidents in. Base the number of nonresidents on animal populations and land access. If people want more nonresident hunters post less. Post up everything and no nonresidents get in. Put the ball in their court. This would fall in line with the hunter pressure concept, but include a land access attribute.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Why if the restaurants and motels are having no problems was the Harvest Moon supper club in MOTT ( which has good hunting) just get sold at auction? There is another person that will try to reopen it again and I hope them the best. Hettinger county economic development has been asking why the hunter numbers were down so far last season. The state sold a record number of licenses last year. The answer is obvious. There is no place for nonpaying people to go anymore. So they don't go there and the whole town suffers. G/O say what you need to, to  justify it however you wish but don't insult our intelligence. pay hunting is doing to small towns what CRP did to them 20 years ago. CRP is great for wildlife and hunting but when acres of farmland are taken out of production there is no need for fuel, implement dealers, parts runners and the people don't need to live at the farm anymore. They move to the bigger towns and the small towns die off. North Dakota's population actually grew in the last 10 years so why are there so many schools closing why does it take two counties worth of schools to field a football team? The answer is above. When you alienate people from your towns you are the reason the towns don't survive. If a bunch of landowners could come together and say come to ABC county we don't limit access we enjoy new faces shoot some birds and visit our buisnesses that county would thrive. For North Dakota to survive the small towns people need to think as a group instead of an individual.


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

Bob,

That's wild the land is close to your friend's land. There are so many counties in GA, I never remember where each one is. 
I have a few contacts that are looking for land in SC and GA-- you are right, the prices are going up largely due to the chance for development down the road. The timber companies are dumping a lot of land because of the increased land values due to development in the future.

Freelancing in the SE is largely limited to contacts (family and friends) and public lands. You cannot enter unposted land without permission in most states, so that makes freelancing difficult even if fee hunting wasn't a factor.

Has anyone here been to Stuttgart, Arkansas? That seems to be the ultimate in the "commercialization of hunting". The town seems to be doing better than most towns in the area. There are many guide services and hunt clubs in the area--plus public land for the freelancer.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but that seems to be the "evil" that many on this board are working so hard to prevent. IMO, it's not all that bad, as long as your state develops a public land acquisition program.

Here's an interesting article about Stuttgart-- it even mentions non-residents in Arkansas from North Dakota...

http://www.fieldandstream.com/fieldstre ... 12,00.html


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

12


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

g/o said:


> What do you feel should be done to correct these problems?


1. HPC, maybe with zones, maybe with noon waterfowl closures certain weekdays.

2. O/G industry limitations. 150 outfitter licenses at 10,000 acres operated max. Moritorium on further outfitter licenses or license transfer until that number reached.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

G/O Your statement


> Until tonight I have never been in favour of limiting nonresidents,after reading Bobm's post I've changed my mind. I wonder if the black helicopters are still circleing his place. I'm sorry Field he gave me a headache I'll pm you tomorrow.


Folks, this is an age old tactic when you know your opponent is making good points that you have no counter for, attack his credibility insinuating I'm some conspiracy flake with nonsense about black helicopters ect. ect. G/O I don't blame you for not liking me after I point out that *you are nothing but a thief hoarding the states game animals for your personal profit.* And I don't blame you for not trying to rebutt the points I made you know I am right on with my accessment of your thievery.
G/O I will however give you credit for being honest about you and the guiding industries intentions


> Gandergrinder, *The prime land in this state will probably be not accesabile to freelance hunters.* My land which I feel is very good, some has been posted for the last 50 years,some has not. So why would you feel that you should have access to the good land ? *Please tell why I owe you access to my property*




*1)* the prime land was available before your industry decided to gobble it up, and charge fees for game animals that are the property of the state and not yours to sell. ( and its not access to land you're selling its access to the publics game animals you just use the land as a fence to keep the public away from their game animals) *Make it illegal to hunt on land that socalled "access" is sold for and watch how many guiding outfits dry up and blow away*
*2)* You owe gander grinder access to your land so he can haverst the game animals on it which are legally just as much his as yours.

Like I've always claimed its probably hopeless, because hunters are not a big enough group of voters to get this thing done and the many non-hunters in ND probably have mixed feelings about this or haven't given the issue much thought , viewing resident and Nr hunters alike as someone they can hopefully do some business with, *the big difference being they are selling something to us they actually own.* Gandergrinder the loss of land will accelerate exponentially not linearly in 10 years or less it will be gone this thing will go across ND like a big wildfire and its just as impossible to stop. Hunting in ND will be sold to the highest bidder just like it now is nationwide. What really galls me is the guiding industry has even successfully corrupted access to National forest land with various liscensing schemes like the multi-tiered elk liscenses sold in Montana. So I guess as long and money talks, and it always will, that will be the next step in this progression.
Let G/Os predition burn into your mind, remember his quote


> Gandergrinder, The prime land in this state will *probably* be not accesabile to freelance hunters


. The ony thing wrong with this line is that the word probably needs to be removed.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

g/o
I know you were talking to GG, however, my answer to your question about access to the "good" land would be: Why should we not get access to a resource that is owned by the state of ND. The game that you are selling is not yours to sell, it belongs to all ND citizens. I wonder how the state would feel if I went out and started selling options on Hamden Slough. Or maybe I could make a little extra cash selling and sub-dividing state school land. That sound kind of crazy doesn't it? I am sure that someone at the Attorney Generals office would be in contact quite rapidly. Why should I accept that you are selling the states wildlife under the guise of land access.

For me selling state owned wildlife and land leasing for hunting are the two main topics that I would like to see stopped.

Your analogy about ND and Texas does not hold much water, first off the majority of people in cities like Dallas, Houston, etc. don't have a clue as to what hunting is even all about. Do you really think that if the 10 +/- million people that live in Dallas and Houston cared about hunting and were avid hunters that the state would be as it is today? G/O's in Texas saw an opportunity and with the help of the "appathetic majority" of the population, Cashed In!! I have been to Texas many times on business, I have seen it with my own eyes, there is a select few that even give a hoot about hunting.

Again this is not personal.

Have a good one!


----------



## catman (Dec 19, 2002)

*STEM THE TIDE!!

It is time for Game and Fish to set how many licences. Then we need to go to a lotery system similar to the deer lotery. Not a three or four zone.If the hunters that are buying and leasing land at an alarming rate can not get a licence for that area every year they would be less likley to buy or lease land up. How about limiting guide licences to 200 and then have a lotery for them each year. That may slow down the guide leasing.Also I would be in favor of a law that during the time you are booked with a guide you are not allowed to hunt any public land for anything that would pertain to res or non-res.*


----------



## Mr. B (Mar 16, 2004)

Maybe some one can enlighten me, I am confused as to where it says that wildlife is public? Does the Constitution say that wildlife is public property? If it does wouldn't that mean it is public to everyone resident and non-resident alike?


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

The migratory critters/birds are controlled by a migratory program and the residential critters/birds are controlled by the state you live in.

As far as hunters/fishermen having clout, I believe I saw on here ND sells around 80.000 to 100,000 resident hunting/fishing licenses, that group of people is easily one third of all voters in ND. So if we got together we could do what is best for us. 8)


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*North Dakota Century Code 20.1-01-03
Ownership and Control of Wildlife is in the state - Damages - Schedule of monetary values - Civil penalty * The ownership of and title to all wildlife within this state is in the state for the purpose of regulating the enjoyment, use, possession, disposition and conservation thereof, and for maintaining action for damages as herin provided. Any person catching, killing, taking trapping, or posessing any wildlife protected by law at any time or in any manner is deemed to have consented that the title thereto remains in this state for the purpose of regulating the taking, use possession, and disposition thereof....................

Did this answer your question MrB?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

12


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

g/o,
thank you for your response on the one point of greatly reducing the fees in the late season. We still are far apart on many issues but you're the first g/o that has ever responded well to that point...you may actually know how to run a business. Case in point.....the owner of the cannonball operation states that he doesn't pay the farmer for access so all the land is open to whom ever the farmer wants to let hunt. (I'd bet that the farmer wouldn't belong to cannonball very long if he let others on but that's another issue) He says publicly that he pays the farmer $17.00 for every bird shot in the season. (another issue....the game belongs to the ND public but he's paying by the bird?) Getting back to the point we are discussing, if the farmer doesn't get paid as much or very little in the "off" season as the paying clientel of the CB club has dwindled to a trickle, why not let those who can't afford the $200.00 to $300.00 per day per gun reduce the excess roosters....and there are way more roosters left than are needed in the Spring for breeding. The g/o would be reducing the need for winter feed and increasing the amount of cover that would be needed for the remaining hens and roosters. I used to use the word compromise but stopped as up to now I have never heard a g/o even get close to the subject. I'll take the above a step further, sorry it takes the g/os out of the picture. Let's say an enterprising chamber memeber from Mott gets several farmers, that say are civic minded and want to help out the community, to open their land to the public as they would know that by doing so they would be helping their neighbors that own the bars, restaurants, gas stations, etc. They might even charge a nominal $25.00 per hunter or restaurants, bars and hotels might pass along their services to the farmer as a way to compensate the farmers for doing this. Either way the ranchers/farmers are profiting, the community will profit, and the hunters will have a place to access land in the better areas of the state. For the sake of logistics, you, as a civic minded individual that cares about his community, might volunteer to set things up. Hell, you might even be able to generate some business out of the deal for the early season the next year.

Anyway, I've suggested this idea numerous time in this medium and you're the first g/o that has ever responded.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

g/o
Private land is Private land! do with it as you please. I am talking about leased land that is being hoarded by the guys in your industry that do not give a rip about creating habitat like you do. All they want to do is take the easy way out and lease up the habitat to line their pockets with the least cost to them. I still believe, and I am working on some numbers to support it, that it is far cheaper to enhance the habitat on private land vs. leasing habitat.

Thanks this weekend will be fun, it always is this time of year, maybe it is the cooler weather but I have the "itch" early this year! 

Have a good one!


----------



## Mr. B (Mar 16, 2004)

Bob K.

I think it does. Can I ask what the North Dakota Century Code is? Is that what all the laws in North Dakota are called? For example in Minnesota they are Minnesota Statutes.

Thanks for the response, I was just curious where it said that wildlife was public.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

ND century code is all of the laws that Govern ND, why they call it that is beyond me  
Have a good one!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

12


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

Bob Kellam wrote



> Why should we not get access to a resource that is owned by the state of ND. The game that you are selling is not yours to sell, it belongs to all ND citizens.


BobM wrote


> You owe gander grinder access to your land so he can haverst the game animals on it which are legally just as much his as yours.


You two are misinterpreting the spirit of publicly owned wildlife. Landowners don't "owe" the public the right to come on their (PRIVATE) land to kill animals for free.

If landowners start selling canned pheasants and backstrap steaks, they are breaking the law. Period. If landowners shoot more than their limit on their own land, they are breaking the law. Period. If landowners claim sole ownership for wildlife raised on their land, even when the wildlife go onto adjacent lands- they are breaking the law. Period.

If they charge for trespass fees, they are *not* breaking the law. Period.

g/o, keep up your fight-- you have the moral high ground on this one. There are plenty of uninformed folks on this site, but your posts are helping the situation.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

I just used CB as an example, others are doing the same thing. What about your late season? That's the point I'm trying to make. The SW ranchers were really hot this past year with the reduced number of hunters they were seeing. The hotels, restaurants and bars must have been feeling it too. Their thought was the extra money for licenses = fewer hunters traveling when in reality there was more NR's than ever that hunted upland and the pheasant range had spread further east than most normal years. You don't have to travel very far from Fargo these days to hunt pheasants. I'm trying to present some solutions to everyone ones problems. How do you propose getting more hunters to the SW?...I know you personally don't have a problem, being so well booked in advance (I'm sure it has to do with the better than average busiess you are running but others obviously are seeing less hunters.) I don't HAVE to travel west to hunt and that has become the situation for many eastern ND hunters as well as those that live in western MN. Evidently it is on record that many of the ranchers in the SW don't want the gnf to impliment much more if any PLOTS and public land in the SW...Do they CARE about their communities or are they just in it for the fast buck? Maybe I'm all wet but is there not a perceived problem with the g/os in the pheasant belt that there were not enough hunters? I personally would travel if there was land open....many of us don't have relationships that allow us to travel out there. (we used to before many of them were taken away by the leases of your industry). How would you propose getting more eastern ND hunters and western for that matter out to the small towns....believe it or not most of us want to hunt out there but find it impossible. There are just so many dollars available for recreation....many guys are just golfing now, which by the way you can do at the most expensive clubs around for well under $100.00 a day. If small town american wants the $$$s from the average guy then make it worth while to travel to the destinations. I completely believe you when you say one of your friends is able to hunt the land the CB runs.....I'm not talking about one guy...I'm talking about opening it up, at least late season, to the general population. Please don't take this the wrong way but if you think it's easy to get on any land in SW ND just by asking then you are completely out of touch with the situation.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

widgeon,
Your reteric is getting old! Do you have any solutions or suggestions?


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

I agree with field hunter. Widg put up or shut up! PLEASE! And if you read my posts I clarified the quote you have chosen with another post to g/o.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

12.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Widg (or whoever you are),

You and I will never reconcile our differences on these points for many reasons. First among them, you have some notion that because you see commercialization in what you inkle is your part of the world, SE US, as the panacea to proper and efficient game management, the model is essential in ND as well. I don't agree with either point, but even if critical in your part of the world, that may not be the case, at least for many decades, in a state with our size, population and development patterns. If it and the other benefits and cure-all's of commercialization are working so well in your part of the world, why the need for so many to come to ND? If/when commercialization does become an essential element of conservation, we'll have completely abandoned the notion of public trust and that wild critters belong to and should be managed for all. In other words, conservation for the "chosen."

Second, you keep blending land ownership with some God-given, unalienable right of profiting from access to the critters that happen to be there. The State owns all wild critters within its borders. The Fed helps manage some of them, but the State owns them. The landowner has no ownership of those critters, sole, partial or otherwise. The landowner "owes" no one the right to get to the critters on his ground. Conversely, the public "owes" no landowner the right or obligation to structure its licensing system or manage its game in a way that allows landowners a windfall through o/g/buy/lease from those critters, especially where doing so harms the greater constituency. Separate issues. In this respect, wild critters are like water and air rather than like oil or gold.

o/g,

Your conversation and responses are common to your industry. Lots of talk and idea-fleshing, NO acknowledgment of a problem or real attempts to resolve. To the sportspersons who will be active this session, do not in any way, shape or form hope or expect there to be compromise with the o/g industry. It will not happen. One side will win, the other will lose. Many, many attempts have been made to open discussions with this group, and all have been rebuffed. This group wants it all. They want to continue and expand the opportunities to profit from wildlife, and most want average-Joe to have other good self-service opportunities. The two are not compatible. The o/g industry cannot continue to expand in numbers and scope without substantially and negatively affecting the 95% or so who don't use o/g.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Widgeon said


> If they charge for trespass fees, they are not breaking the law. Period.


Like I said above if the want to sell tresspass rights fine, but this is a slight of hand and they are really selling the right to harvest publics animals. Nobody is stupid enough to think those people are paying just to walk on the property so why not speak plainly? One would think that you could at the very least admit this obvious truth.....nothing but a bunch of thieves, so I suppose dishonesty is to be expected.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Have fun guys....the bluegills and crappies are waiting.


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

Dan,

you are correct-- we will never agree.



> I don't agree with either point, but even if critical in your part of the world, that may not be the case, at least for many decades, in a state with our size, population and development patterns.


Fact is Dan, landowners will make money on their land somehow no matter where they live. They plant pines and make subdivisions in the south, they graze the hell out of it in North Dakota. Both are bad for wildlife, and both are encouraged when the landowner does not recieve incentives to leave quality habitat.



> If it and the other benefits and cure-all's of commercialization are working so well in your part of the world, why the need for so many to come to ND?


I personally go to north dakota for the change of scenery and hunting the prairie pothole region. I don't go to north dakota for osceola turkeys. Why do you want to go to Florida, Dan, if the hunting in North Dakota is so great?



> Conversely, the public "owes" no landowner the right or obligation to structure its licensing system or manage its game in a way that allows landowners a windfall through o/g/buy/lease from those critters, especially where doing so harms the greater constituency


The state has no business passing laws that trample private property rights for the greater constituency's recreational pursuits. Hunting is recreation, Dan, not a life or death issue. The greater constituency had better provide some incentives if they plan on taking advantage of private property for such a privilage.

The landowners in North Dakota are aware that people will pay for hunting access. Some don't care about the extra money and don't post their land, others need the money and lease out their land. Did anyone die because of this? no. Did some hunters get mad because they could no longer hunt pheasants and ducks for free on private property? Yes. Do I care? Hell no. It's the landowner's call, and his livelyhood on the line.

Bob Kellam wrote


> Widg put up or shut up! PLEASE!


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

BobM,

If you pay for a hunting lease, try getting your money back because you hunted your heart out but didn't kill anything. You will realize pretty quick that you purchased the right to hunt on the property, not dead animals. No sleight of hand there.

The $17/bird deal mentioned on the board is illegal unless on a shooting preserve with reared birds.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Widgeon that may be a good point but still the fact is the customer is still paying to hunt not trespass as it is so often described by G/Os on this site. I guess you would admit that because you just stated that in your last post, no one would pay just to trespass. If they are paying to hunt then the landowner is selling the hunt for animals that are not his property, whether the hunter is successful or not does not change that underlying premis. So often landowners try to soften this fact with that 
" I'm only selling the right to tresspass" line. Call a spade a spade, which I will admit you have, but others on your side of this discussion are no so forthright.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

> Fact is Dan, landowners will make money on their land somehow no matter where they live. They plant pines and make subdivisions in the south, they graze the hell out of it in North Dakota. Both are bad for wildlife, and both are encouraged when the landowner does not recieve incentives to leave quality habitat.


Maybe the intense land use of the best available habitat in the South requires the commercializers to grow their own private critters. For the forseeable future, our size, population and development patterns won't materially inhibit Mother Nature, and we'll do just just fine, thank you, especially if the only available option is let the commercializers grow them for us, errr.... them. You can never have "enough" habitat, but livestock and commodity price cycles, mixed with geography and realistic development forcasts, leaves ND is a vastly different need for your form of "conservation."



> I personally go to north dakota for the change of scenery and hunting the prairie pothole region. I don't go to north dakota for osceola turkeys. Why do you want to go to Florida, Dan, if the hunting in North Dakota is so great?


I'll bet 95% of our NR wing shooters come from states that offer wing-shooting, just wing-shooting far poorer than the potential in ND. That's why they come here. I turkey hunt almost exlusively with my nr brother in law and no ND nr turkey tags are given - that's the only reason I hunt turkeys outside of ND. We hunt the nearest available other states. Different strokes, but I have NO desire to travel to PA, NC or anywhere else to hunt Easterns or NB, CO or anywhere else to hunt Merriams. I will need to go to FL to get a Osceola some day and OK, KS or TX to get a Rio. Can't get them in these parts, elst I would.



> The state has no business passing laws that trample private property rights for the greater constituency's recreational pursuits.


Here's the unmistakeable sound of the blender whurring again. A landowner has no "rights" with respect to the state-owned wild critters, save in very limited, expressly-granted circumstances relative to depdredation. His/her right is solely to grant, deny and, at least presently, charge for access. His/her right to charge and profit assumes the accessee is licensed by the State to be there in the first place. He/she has no "right" or expectancy that the State will do all it can to maximize that charge and profit, especially when the object of the accessee is a state-owned resource that is supposed to be managed for all citizens of the State, to the exclusion of none. You may not wish to admit it, but for your "trampling private property rights" to apply, the resource must first also be privatized and pass with and be alienable seperate from the land, ala minerals.



> Hunting is recreation, Dan, not a life or death issue.


Is fishing life and death or recreation? Why are my "rights" to net 10,000 pounds of perch and walleye from Sak. and DL subservient to the greater recreational constituency. Because they're public waters? Partly, but more directly because they are public fish. By God, if we want to commercialize the public's "recreational" resources, let's get after it and do it right. Anyone have a spare trawler?



> Did some hunters get mad because they could no longer hunt pheasants and ducks for free on private property? Yes. Do I care? Hell no. It's the landowner's call, and his livelyhood on the line.


You really need to get some of the G&F surveys recently done and understand how the people of ND, even landowners, feel about the how vital they see the hunting $ to their existence. There are lots of reasons to post and/or lease. One is $. Another very common one is the constant parade of hunters, and not wanting the land over-run and/or not wanting to answer the phone/door a dozen times each day - let the outfitter deal with those hassles. I've lost access to ground for this reason, which is horribly ironic and sad for ND hunters.

Widg, with so many like you who have come and gone on this site with these views, there's a "the rest of the story" out there for you. Now I'm not sure you're a FL or other SE US resident at all. You're sounding more and more like one of very own, home-grown, petal-to-the-metal commercializers in disguise. That's the beauty of anonymity - license to say whatever you please w/o consequence or context.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

G/O again you diverted the topic. Your post said towns in good hunting areas are doing just fine. The Harvest Moon is one example of what pay hunting is doing to small towns. Come up with the benefit of outfitters contributions to small towns PLEASE I BEG YOU.


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

G/O and Widg and any other MARKET HUNTERS:

I can't believe that you forgot to reread your industry issued talking points memo, because you both somehow missed mentioning that populations are at near all-time highs. The same type of response came out of the late 1800's and early 1900's when the buffalo and passenger pigeon market hunters were making their indelible mark on history.

Question to you both: where in the constitution or century code does it say that you have the inherent rights to degrade my public trust resource for profit? Case in point, does a local or State government have the right to charge you for water or air because you are in their boundaries? Of course the answer is no, but somehow private land rights somehow provide this distinction to allow for money to access a public trust resource. Nice business model. And as I have been saying for a long time, name one other business in this entire global economy that pays zero, zilch, nothing for its primary overhead. Of course, the only business model that fits this equation is none other than the guide. Don't bother wasting my time with responding to how much you pay for decoys, etc. The fact of the matter is you pay nothing for what you are giving: a dead and degraded public trust resource that was delivered by excluding others from that right.

Another thing I will readily point out is that the market hunters of today do a fabulous job of taking from the resource, but a large percentage rarely put anything back. Another clear indication that profit is the pure motive associated with their business. Of course, another one of fabulous talking points is how much satisfaction they get out of seeing a first-time hunter take his first snow goose, etc. However, the most extreme satisfaction is getting that cash in hand, which in certain circumstances is probably never reported as income. Do not ever forget that greed is what drives this bunch. And as Dan mentioned, that is exact reason why you will never see this group of $$$ chasers ever ante anything up at the bargaining table. Which of course is another talking point that is used readily and handily: they don't make much money doing the business. Take, take, take, but give nothing in return. Nice business community.

My solution is simple, set a limit on how many and the amount of their take per year. No different than setting limits to the amount of pollution one can discharge into the water or air... two other public trust resources that have tried and true rules and regulations.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

_*THE*_ public truster is back. What's shakin' B-Man? Nice to hear from you again. I see you're getting closer to ND...... Hope you can make it back to God's Country for a hunt this Fall.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

g/o said:


> Bob Kellam, I disagree with you private land is private. I should not be forced to give you access to my property. If the birds on my property are the ownership of John Q Public the people paying me for access are entiteled to them also. Although I do not agree with you on those points that is my feelings. However you have made my analogy of Texas correct. How many people in Fargo actually care about these issues? Again a select few, have a good trip this weekend.


g/o,

You are right, you should be able to control access to your own land. And if you want to charge people to access YOUR land, then I guess that's up to you. But, what I and a large number of people are against is leasing the hunting rights. I just don't believe that any G/O should be able to lease the hunting rights to another persons land and then sell those rights to the highest bidder, locking up the resource so that a relatively few rich people can enjoy the wildlife that belongs to all of us. Over the years I have lost several good bowhunting spots, not to other bowhunters, but the landowner leased the hunting rights to a G/O for ducks and geese, so he said he could no longer allow anyone else to hunt there. I even contacted the G/O, he said he would be happy to let me bowhunt, for the same access fee that he charged his duck and goose hunters. 
So, a landowner whose friendship I nurtured over the years, helped fix fence, dropped off a turkey or a ham around Christmas, can no longer allow me to hunt deer on his land so that someone else can make money from it guiding duck and goose hunters. This land was always posted, but I and a few others asked for and got permission to bowhunt, and a number of other people asked for and got permission to hunt ducks and geese. So a bunch of locals are pushed off land that they have hunted for years so that a few rich guys can shoot some ducks. 
It would be easy to blame the landowner, but to be honest, I do understand, it is awfull hard to turn down chunk of money that would almost equal the cash rent and still get to farm it yourself.

Yup, the times are changing, but when it comes to hunting, can you honestly say that this change is for the better, for all of us?

huntin1


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Welcome back Bioman - see what you started here!!!

M.


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

bioman- welcome to the discussion.



> can't believe that you forgot to reread your industry issued talking points memo, because you both somehow missed mentioning that populations are at near all-time highs.


Explain. I've got no idea where you're going with this one.



> Case in point, does a local or State government have the right to charge you for water or air because you are in their boundaries? Of course the answer is no, but somehow private land rights somehow provide this distinction to allow for money to access a public trust resource.


Apparently not in North Dakota (or Colorado?), but many states charge for water pumped from the ground. You should read Ben Hill Griffins story. He had a good deal for a while.



> name one other business in this entire global economy that pays zero, zilch, nothing for its primary overhead.


So you think game animals just happen? You don't think landowners give up something (time, space) to better their land for game animals?
I won't mention how much guides pay for decoys, per your request.

I will ask you how much you pay for decoys. Several hundred dollars? A few more hundred dollars for a gun? 20-30 thousand for a 4 wheel drive?

Go ahead, get dressed in your new gore-tex, go scouting with your thousand dollar trailer in tow, then get mad at me for giving money to the landowners who face the decision of leaving a cattail slough or plowing it. Tell me I'm wrong when my lease payment helped them from slipping into debt when the grain harvest didn't cover the expenses.



> Another thing I will readily point out is that the market hunters of today do a fabulous job of taking from the resource, but a large percentage rarely put anything back. Another clear indication that profit is the pure motive associated with their business.


Another bold-faced lie. Hunt clubs and leases have a long track record of saving and enhancing habitat. Stakeholders that don't reinvest in their resource go out of business. Travel around the country a little. Read a few books. You just might learn something.

Day Buide wrote



> You really need to get some of the G&F surveys recently done and understand how the people of ND, even landowners, feel about the how vital they see the hunting $ to their existence. There are lots of reasons to post and/or lease.


The beauty of a privately owned resource-- the landowners can decide what is best for them (I'm talking access fees, not bag limits or season lenghts--something the state should always be in control of). No one is holding a gun to their head to force them to lease their land. If they feel it's in their best interest to leave their land open, by all means, leave it open.

Comparing recreational hunting to commercial fishing is an analogy I cannot accept. An entirely different ball game- remember commercial fishing incorperates the tragedy of the commons more than virtually any other market place. Recreational hunting on private land with controlled access is not the tragedy of the commons. Public land with no regulations is tragedy of the commons.

I'm going to go break into my neighbors house because they have some of my air (a public resource, right Bioman) in there. Landlord's can't charge for houses right? Who would live in a house that has no air (a public resource) in it?



> You're sounding more and more like one of very own, home-grown, petal-to-the-metal commercializers in disguise


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

12


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

12


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

g/o said:


> Nad....


hehehe, very clever o/g. :beer:


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

o/g wrote



> Remember Bioman I'm the one who is filling the pheasant feeders, and putting out alfalfa bales when its 30 below while you sit in your warm office. I'm the one who is caring for your public trust resource,remember that. I'm not complaining because I enjoy doing it. But don't call me a market hunter or someone takes and gives nothing in return.


Thank you for donating your time and money....and remember you are the one who is selling the publics birds so that is the least you should do.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

G/O you ask in your previous post WHO FEEDS THE PUBLIC RESOURCE? I think that answer is me and bioman and Dan and everyone else that pays taxes. Remember back to the pre CRP days when is was rare to see a pheasant or a deer. The farms were still there. The stewardship that you speak of has come since tax dollars started providing for the wildlife. The stewardship is from all of us not just you so in your own question AREN'T WE ALL JUSTIFIED IN RECOUPING OUR COSTS? All this talk of providing for the wildlife has come since the ability to make a few extra dollars has come about.

G/O I do think since you have corresponded on these threads that you are an inigma in the guiding and outfitting world. You seem to really care about people and the wildlife. You are fighting for what you seem is right and I respect that. You have even sounded like you feel our pain in this topic. I look forward to reading your posts even though I disagree with them 90% of the time.

As far as the Acres per guide statistics. I'm sure there are some cooking of the books. If a large outfitter say in DL has 15-20 guides working for him all he needs to do is divide the land amongst them and poof he only locks up 10000 acres instead of the 100,000 that is the true amount.
There needs to be more policing of the industry.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

First of all widgeon. I never said any land owner owed me anything.

G/O what I am saying is that your theory on having a bad winter and drought does not hold up in terms of relieving problems with access and overcrowding. I was not saying that you have to give me access to your land. I have never thought that people should just give me permission.

One thing I find frustrating with people of your generation is that you automatically think because I am younger than you that my thoughts and views on the world are not valid. Why do you think so many of my age group are disgusted with politics. You don't have to agree with what I say but don't try to spin it into something else to make me look bad.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

g/o wrote



> The only way you are going to get more public access in prime areas is for the public to pay the landowner more money. Example when the plots came out they offered me a whopping 2 bucks an acre to allow public access. I could get that anywhere at the drop of a hat. If you want more public access out west you are going to have to offer these guys alot more money.


Widgeon wrote



> The state has no business passing laws that trample private property rights for the greater constituency's recreational pursuits. Hunting is recreation,


Also wrote



> You two are misinterpreting the spirit of publicly owned wildlife. Landowners don't "owe" the public the right to come on their (PRIVATE) land to kill animals for free.


g/o and widgeon

Perhaps the landowners do not owe us the right to access, but guess what? The public doesn't owe landowners support prices on wheat, we don't owe them payments on CPR, we don't owe them tax brakes on nearly everything they buy. We also don't owe the western ranchers cheaper than dirt grazing of public land. I think they should pay market value for their grazing and lose their grazing rights when they try run people off. You know if we gave them the boot there would be much better hunting for us. They say they pay for it. They buy and sell grazing rights. That could end quickly. Who did they buy it from? Each other, and who established that system? Not the government , not the public, I guess in reality they could pay a million and it means nothing. Get them off, boot them out, now. We are the government and we pay taxes through the nose to support agriculture. Agriculture can not survive without us. If you think so try it please. As far as guides and outfitters if they guide someone who can't find his way around fine. Anything else and they are simply market hunters. G/o you have no right to what you are doing, you are simply ripping of every other person for your personal benefit. Don't give me the song and dance about what you do for your community, in the long run you are choking your community. But, you will get your bucks at any cost right. I am surprised you people can show your face. The only possible way you can do it is if you have no conscience. If we had representatives with any sense in North Dakota they would put an end to leasing. Guides have simply found a way to rob the public without using a gun. There are people sitting in the North Dakota State Penitentiary that are less guilty.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Widgeon wrote



> So you think game animals just happen? You don't think landowners give up something (time, space) to better their land for game animals?
> I won't mention how much guides pay for decoys, per your request.
> 
> I will ask you how much you pay for decoys. Several hundred dollars? A few more hundred dollars for a gun? 20-30 thousand for a 4 wheel drive?


I don't think it has any bearing how much bio man pays for decoys. If he spends $1000 does that somehow justify the rip off of the public by guides and outfitters.

Perhaps a few outfitters put some back into the resource, but wildlife lives in spite of most, not because of them. The attitude they showed in the last negotiation showed their true color. They want it all even though it belongs to all.


----------



## snowflake (Apr 2, 2004)

#1--Send plainman some cheese will ya',seems he's got plenty of whine to go around


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Snowflake

I'm not whining, my intention is to alarm people enough to take action. I will put my best effort into taking away what you think is your private sandbox. Thank you snowflake you have done me a service. Like the native Americans many people judge a man by his enemies. An attempted insult from you I regard as one of the most credible complements I could have. If your looking to #1 for reinforcements that ok too. Tolerance is the mother of a sick society. If we tolerate everything watch how fast the freaks come out of the woodwork. The political correct don't like conflict unless they hand it out. It is time people began as a group (social action) to show their disgust with the guides and outfitters stealing a public resource. Call it what you want, I call it theft. To condone it puts you in the same pig pen with them. You know that empty headed old saying, don't say anything if you can't say something nice? Great goal, but people like that get walked all over by people like the guides and the outfitters. You can take this to the bank snowflake, if enough people get sick of this the guides and outfitters will be out of business. We just need to make people realize that their children will never enjoy the outdoors as we have if they sit on their hands. We also need to make the small town folk realise that all the guides and outfitters want them to do is drink the cool-aid. I'll never whine snowflake, but if you want to squeal like a piggy not many want to listen.


----------



## snowflake (Apr 2, 2004)

Seems like I riled up another beer-bellied good-ol'-boy who wants to shove his ideas down everybodys throat!The argument about g/o's can go on forever,pointless as it is,it will never get resolved by sitting behind your keyboard where you're safe and sound instead of getting off your ***,and petioning the populace of N.D.The reason that isn't being done is because most of ya' don't want to see the real results of what all people think.Just because you can't hunt when and where you want you look for someone to blame,and that's the dreaded g/o.Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe the reason alot of the farmers out there lease their land is because they are tired of being taken advantage-of.Go ahead,get out in rural N.D. and talk to EVERYONE,not just the people you know for sure back your play!!!I'll bet the farm,you would be mighty surprised at the real truth,and who they really want on their place!!!!!Plane-jane,#1 lives in wisconsin and I just thought he would have access to enough cheese to accompany your whine,and whine it is as far as I'm concerned,I don't need re-enforcements to deal with the likes of you.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Snowflake

Most of my relatives farm, and I have thousands of acres to hunt. You might be able to address how landowners feel in Minnesota, but not North Dakota. It is people spouting off back in Minnesota that makes you unwelcome with sportsmen around North Dakota. You come out here for a couple weeks drop a few measly dollars and think you are contributing. Meanwhile we are here year around and buy everything here. Now you tell us in North Dakota how we should treat landowners and guides and outfitters. Snowflake your arrogance knows no bounds. Your fellow Minnesotans must cringe every time you open your mouth. You sure don't do anything for the relationship between states. Do you support the Minnesota case against North Dakota?


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

Actions are being taken to cure the blatent disrespect of the forum.

I tolerate heavy opinions but not personal attacks or profanity. An intelligent conversation can exist without either.

If you're going to post without respect for the simple forum rules than your posting privelages will have to be removed.

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/members/phpBB/terms.html

Everyone cares about these issues or you wouldn't be here. If these forums are to be constructive the mud throwing has to go.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Sorry Chris, let me explain my concerns.

We as sportsmen have survived, but have been embattled for the last 30 or 40 years with the animal rights and anti gun crowd. People have thought I was selfish because I would not share my duck hunting pond when the truth is I don't duck hunt. My motivation is, I am concerned about all hunters, including duck hunters, even though I do not duck hunt. Our safety has always been our numbers. Now, like wolves who stalk the sick and the week, the animal rights, the anti hunters, the anti gun crowd see a breach in our armor. Today they salivate over the prospects of our demise. This in chronological order is what I see happening not only in North Dakota, but throughout the United States.

1. More and more land access will disappear through leasing by outfitters, guides, and individual hunters.

2. Hunter numbers will gradually fall in the same incremental process that access disappears.

3. Younger people will not consider hunting a viable recreation option and will turn to other activities.

4. Already involved hunters will be driven to less expensive recreational activities.

5. Animal rights groups already distribute information to elementary education facilities, and they will step up their effort.

6. The average age of hunters will dictate that many of us began to drop out.

7. Manufacturers of rifles, shotguns, decoys, camo clothing, and all other hunting equipment by now will be in financial trouble. Many by this time will be gone. The reason: hunter numbers will drop in half in the next 20 years. Those that do survive, if they can, will be forced to charge exorbitant prices for their product.

8. Hunters buy more four wheel drives than farmers do and by this time the dealerships will see sales of four wheel drive units drop.

9. Fewer nonresidents and residents alike will visit the small town communities, resulting in even more disconnect with the plight of those communities.

10. The disconnect will result in the majority of people supporting corporate farming because there is no longer a personal link with agriculture.

11. Cheaper foods will be imported.

12. The farmer, rancher, hunter division will weaken us all and a simultaneously attack by the anti hunting and animal rights types will call for and end to animal cruelty ie hunting and raising animals for slaughter. They will be direct against the hunters perhaps, more discreet towards the ranchers at first.

13. Animal rights will further divide people in an effort to remove ranchers from public land.

14. Division among hunters will follow, with those who hunt with a gun against those who hunt with a bow. They will divide those who hunt with black powder from those who hunt with modern arms.

15. Hunter numbers will be to low and like all other things in a democracy the majority rules. Family farms at this time will also be nearly gone.

16. In the end the wildlife will be extirpated from the land. Those of us who profess to love the outdoors will be gone and the silent spring that Aldo Leupold wrote of will be here. Our children will sit in front of their monitors and play games on computers, and appreciation of the outdoors and family farming will follow the dodo into oblivion.

I'm kind of an old guy, so what I am arguing for now is for my grandchildren, and yours. You may be 15 years old now, but someday you will find yourself in these shoes.

Chris, thanks for not cutting us off without a chance to get to our point.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

12


----------



## GooseBuster3 (Mar 1, 2002)

Yah but who do you think will out bid to keep his company going?? The G/O. I


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

When I started this thread I wanted suggestions on how to get people involved.

There are a great many people on this forum that care about wildlife, ND and the tradition of freelance hunting, heated debate proves that.

g/o seems like a decent person he provides for the wildlife on his property for the benefit of his family, I can not argue with that, after all it is his land, the bottom line here is, the state of ND owns the resource he is selling. and as i posted previously there always will be a need for g/o's

snowflake is a resident of a beautiful area of MN, fighting for his uncles that live in ND, and again I can not find fault in that, Although some times is is a little tough to figure out where you are coming from. I guess the free loader comment threw me a high tight curve ball. I guess I expect that hunters regardless of discipline would know and understand freelance hunting, the traditions and philosophy. It is far from free loading.

Widgeon is from Florida I think (by the way if you are from FL I *do* hope you and yours are safe and well) and he works for a landowner in ND I think, and he also hunts in ND but he has never said if he pays to hunt or if he just expects everyone but him to pay.

Whelen35 on another thread, thinks someone is trying to force him to allow access to his land. IMO nothing could be farther from the truth.

Many others here have expressed a passion for the sport. Some here see their future opportunities threatened. *WOW*!!!! a dim bulb brightens!!!!!!

g/o doesn't want limitations and he thinks the future is pay to play, snowflake thinks we should pay his uncles in ND to hunt on their land. Widg thinks, well I am not sure what he thinks but he is a poster boy landowner rights. And whelen35 is a farmer, Thank You for the wonderful breakfast buffet I had this morning, you and all farmers feed the world!!
others here have posted that they feel threated by the possible loss of an age old tradition.

You know what guys the bottom line here is that we all care about *Hunting*! and unless we quite this constant bickering every time this subject shows up on a thread and agree to some compromise we are just going to keep calling each other names and getting nowhere!

Some on this site have tried to compromise with the other views and they have been ignored.

*IS THERE MIDDLE GROUND?* or are we just going to keep getting chewed out by Chris.

Have a good one!


----------



## jimboy (Apr 1, 2003)

Hmm. I wonder how many golfers there would be if green fees were $300 bucks a day? :2cents:


----------



## Leo Porcello (Jul 10, 2003)

> You know what guys the bottom line here is that we all care about Hunting! and unless we quite this constant bickering every time this subject shows up on a thread and agree to some compromise we are just going to keep calling each other names and getting nowhere!


AMEN!! :beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Thanks for the perspective Bob. It is not so infuriating if people have a connection. It many times appears as if these are people disconnected from our area trying to tell us what we have to do. I guess it's not like they are going to vote on these things, that will still be left to residence. I think that some of us have to strongly appose what is happening in the outfitting and guiding industry fully realizing that there will be a compromise. My strong opposition is to try influence where we meet. Somewhere near the middle would be nice, but as the last rounds went the outfitters and guides gave nothing. Only the resident North Dakota sportsmen lost anything in the last negotiations when we wanted the hunter pressure concept. Many nonresidence see this as being against them when the truth is most resident sportsmen simply didn't want the birds pushed out of the state so rapidly because of the pressure. This benefits nonreisdence and residence alike. Many people coming from out of state don't understand when we feel that a quality experience is being jeopardized. I don't hunt waterfowl, but I think all hunters, trappers, and fishermen need to stick together because soon we will all be in the same boat. I realize that I get hyperbolic at times, but if you want to buy a used vehicle from a guy that is asking $10,000 and you want it for $8,000 you don't offer $9000. I also hope that sportsmen will get more vocal because the only meaningful negotiation will come from a position of power. Begging will get us nowhere. I will say if g/o is operating on his own land it is much different in my mind than those who lease. On the other hand the work he does for wildlife is only good business. It's not like he is doing it for others or for the love of wild things, it is business. If he did these things before he begin charging for access, then I will think differently. I think that if the guides and outfitters refuse to negotiate in the future that these things will be settled by state referendum, or by the courts. They talk negotiation, but they expect the sportsmen and women of North Dakota to be the only ones on the give side. This can not be tolerated again. If we lose again it is not to the outfitters and guides, it will be to hunter apathy. Many things that look good to small towns today will be detrimental tomorrow. The next round of negotiation has to be meaningful and with a goal of as little detrimental impact as possible, and that means for all concerned parties.


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

Pebble Beach is $395 per round and you can only make a reservation if you are also staying at the resort. This makes the cost of a round more than $300 and they stay pretty full.

I'm glad I played there in 96. I thought $175 was a lot, but then, it was Pebble Beach and I got to play it three days in a row.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

redlabel

Wow. I am happy that you could afford that. Truthfully though I guess everything is a matter of priority, I spent $638 for a combination license in Montana last year. I hunted public land around Helena. Kind of scary though. I hope our grandchildren can afford recreation in the future. That is why I like hunting, it can be done with a modest income. Back when I didn't have enough money for a single center fire rifle (1980's) I was trying to see how many deer I could shoot with one arrow. The fourth deer I didn't get complete pass through and when the deer fell it broke my arrow in half. Still, I made it four years with one arrow. I wanted to spear one, but when I called the Game and Fish they told me it wasn't a legal weapon. I guess if I want to continue hunting after retirement I may have to move to a state with more public land. Kind of hate to, my grandfather was one of the first people on a railroad crew headed through North Dakota. He homesteaded in North Dakota in about 1878 or 1880. Family ties and all. Decisions, decisions.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

12


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Didn't you notice that I said if you cared for wildlife before you were a guide that I would change my mind? My intention was to leave that opening for you to change my mind. I do have a question. It bothered you that someone called you o/g, is that something detrimental? I took that as outfitter/guide instead of guide/outfitter or am I missing something? You have an absolute right to make a profit on lodging, and you should be entitled to a profit from guiding. You also have the right to post your land and deny access. The only gray area is the paid access. It is hard to differentiate between access and selling wildlife. What makes it gray is, if there were no animals there would the access be worth anything? The answer is no. You see it as access, the hunter you guide may see it as access, or he may see it as buying an animal. Then there is the hunters who can not afford your services, or are abhorred by the idea of paying to hunt , they may see it as loophole that currently allows individuals to circumvent the intent of state owned animals to deny them equal privilege to a natural resource. I see some of your points, do you see any of mine?


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

> Dan Bueide addressed me as o/g from day one it bothered me. Reason is respect I do not expect him or noone else on this site to respect my g/o occupation. But on the other hand I do expect respect as a human being. Maybe that is the way he treats people in his buisness but I treat people with respect when they come to mine.


Can't let that one go. I always refer to your industry as o/g, since under current law there is no "g" without the "o", i.e., the "o" comes first. If this honked you off, my apologies. And, you're not byond a shot or two here. But, because of the way I addressed you, to accuse me of some unprofessional behavior at work is over the line. Just because I think you and your brethern are unreasonable in many of your views and positions doesn't mean I think you are a bad or unprofessional businessman. I can seperate your beliefs and your posts here from the way you conduct your business.

And, if you really want my respect, with your frequent posts and edgy positions, come out from behind your handle. Since day one, I've posted using my name, even on controversial subjects. It helps keeps me in line, but I also feel if you're willing to say something you should be willing to stand behind it and take responsibility for it.

As far as the "answers", until you and your idustry are willing to acknowledge there is a need to limit hunters/prssure and the growth of your industry and its impact on ND hunting, there will be no opportunity to compromise. I don't expect you ever will, and that's why I've said I don't believe there ever will be compromise with your group. Your ideas for rest areas in the context of unchecked pressure and o/g expansion is like trying to shut down a sucking wound with a band-aid. Might make sense for your business in your area of operation but it offers much more for you than "average joe" without other much more needed adjustments. As I said before, if we get down to the right amount of pressure, the need for rest areas is far less. I've never had much luck squeezing 10 lbs. of stuff into a five pound bag.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

g/o
Sometimes I am not very good at making my point Sorry! My reference to the state owning the wildlife on your land has always been in the context of: if you want to run an operation such as yours you should have to pay a fee for your license based on the amount and species of wildlife on your property with credit for the habitat improvements.

I feel if you want to be a g/o it should be mandatory that the license include restrictions on all operations that do not improve habitat and I feel strongly that Leasing land for hunting should not be allowed.

The non-resident thing is getting old, really old! I hunt with non-residents they believe that there needs to be restrictions on numbers of hunters allowed or the times they can hunt.

I hope you do not leave this forum.

Plainsman I hear you, My great grandfather homesteaded land that is still in the family in the 1870's I never knew the man but my Mother has done a good job of passing on the heritage.

Have a good one!


----------



## jimboy (Apr 1, 2003)

Redlable, That's Pebble Beach. A major golf course. Now compare that to a major outfitter. Still only a fraction of what it costs to hunt a major guide operation. My point being comparing guides fees to green fees is not the same. so those who find it ironic that people will pay green fees and not access fees to hunting are searching for examples to support their cause. Poor examples I might add. comercial hunting operations will be the down fall of hunting in ND and the small town. You start with many and then slowly the bigger operations will grow and squeeze out the little operations. the bigger ones will expand and develope to slowly sqeeze out the little towns by offering gas, supplies, and places to stay so they never even have to go to these small towns. What's left is a few mega operations that cater to every need. Thus, setting the stage for corporate or mega farm operations. If small towns really want to save themselves they need to stand against the g/o industry and support the freelance hunters who depend on the small towns for goods and services. In the same way they need to support initiatives that will prevent large tracks of land being gobbled up by NR's for the sole purpose of recreation. One way of doing that is to cap the number of NR's every year. Folks will be less likely to invest if they do not have a guantee of hunting every year and it would be good for the resource. That is my :2cents: which is supported by basic economics. It is a trample the weak and hurdle the dead buisness world and in my opinion has no place in ND's most greatest asset.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

These last few post have been very good. You know I have always looked at the hunter landowner as a symbiotic relationship. If I am not mistaken agriculture and defense are our two largest items in the national budget. Hunters pay their taxes and a big part goes for CRP payments, support prices, disaster payments etc. We have never complained much because in the fall we were always met with smiling faces. Sometimes it even included coffee and cookies. The visit was as enjoyable as the hunt. We would not see each other often so an hour or two sometimes passed as we would catch up on what our families were doing. Now the old friends are off the land and their children don't remember us. They meet us at the door and ask who are you again? Their parents live in town now just like us. I guess now everyone feels it is them against the rest of the world. I guess many landowners don't want the relationship anymore. Many just want the money. I think if that is the way of the future then we shouldn't be expected to pump that much money to them through taxation. After all when both parties have mutual benefit that is a symbiotic relationship. When only one side benefits that is a parasitic relationship. I have never looked at landowners as if their only value was to serve me, but I keep getting the feeling that is how they look at me. Many ( not yet most) don't see my face when I walk to the door, they see Benjamin Franklin. Am I the only one that would like to see the relationship like 1960 again? Are there any landowners who miss the old days? I already have more places to hunt than I can get to each year, but not enough friends to share cookies with.


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

Dan and Mark: greetings good to be back on the site.

Widg, my rebuttal...



> Explain. I've got no idea where you're going with this one.


Simple, each and everyone O/G that comes into this forum spews the same rhetoric. After reading the same points time after time it would appear that your industry has issued a talking point memo for use on these forums.



> Apparently not in North Dakota (or Colorado?), but many states charge for water pumped from the ground. You should read Ben Hill Griffins story. He had a good deal for a while.


I have completed projects in 32 states and have never heard of a State or local government requiring a landowner to pay for ground water. However, I do know if a ground water basin is impacted, then the State does have the right to deny water right applications. As for Ben Hill Griffin, I have no knowledge of what he or his business attempted to do. However, if he was degrading a public trust resource for profit and violated local ordinances or laws, then he rightfully got what he deserved.



> So you think game animals just happen? You don't think landowners give up something (time, space) to better their land for game animals?


I will borrow graciously from Aldo Leopold "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community." Somehow the land ethic concept that Aldo envisioned has been lost within your business community. And I don't recall the previous generation of landowners feeling that there was some inherent right to profit off of wildlife that happened to occupy their land, that was true until the commercialization of wildlife hit its full stride.



> Go ahead, get dressed in your new gore-tex, go scouting with your thousand dollar trailer in tow, then get mad at me for giving money to the landowners who face the decision of leaving a cattail slough or plowing it.


Private landowners are regulated by federal laws that do not allow fill in wetlands. Therefore, if he decides to fill that wetland than either the State or federal government may have something to say about that matter.



> I will ask you how much you pay for decoys. Several hundred dollars? A few more hundred dollars for a gun? 20-30 thousand for a 4 wheel drive?


Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines recreation as the following: 
n: refreshment of strength and spirits after work; also: a means of refreshinment or diversion: HOBBY. 
Further, recreational vehicle is defined as follows: n: a vehicle designed for recreational use.

So when you mention how much did I pay for my decoys, gun, and 4 wheel drive, my answer is simple, whatever I deemed a fair price to pay so that I could use these items for recreational purposes. However, you want to try and twist this issue because the current day market hunters pay nothing for the publicly owned trust, which in this case is dead animals/birds.

I will ask you a question back, what price did you pay for that public trust resource you are selling? Nothing, but once again you are entitled to that profit because you are simply excluding others from their public trust resource by leasing up private land. In addition, you and your business community operate without the parameters of a restricted harvest. You can operate without any boundaries, because as long as you have a paying client, they are entitled to their limit, no matter how much you have taken in the past nor the amount you will take in the future. You wonder why people are disgusted with guides, one of your brethren offers his services on Ebay. As a way to promote his vitality as a guide, he states that they shot over 1,000 birds last year. Like I said previously, degrading a public trust resource for profit isn't going to be a popular business venture with the vast majority of hunters who go out and hunt maybe four to eight weekends a year.



> Tell me I'm wrong when my lease payment helped them from slipping into debt when the grain harvest didn't cover the expenses.


A bit over melodramatic don't you think? One question, did you happen to slip that farmer a W-2 so that he could lawfully report that income he received?



> Another bold-faced lie. Hunt clubs and leases have a long track record of saving and enhancing habitat. Stakeholders that don't reinvest in their resource go out of business. Travel around the country a little. Read a few books. You just might learn something.


Hardly a lie in ND. I just spent a considerable amount of time reading public notices on the COE website to see how many wetland creation/restoration projects had been permitted and completed in ND in the past year. Doesn't appear that a lot of ND market hunters are spending a portion of their profits restoring wetlands.

As for your advice on traveling and reading, thanks for the reminder. I think I will read up on recent public trust case law, seems other states are also listening to the will of people à which is the public trust doctrine is the most effective mechanism to combat the modern day market hunters.


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

G/O:



> Bioman, Nice to have join in although I wish you would go back and read some of my previous posts before you pass judgement on me.


I have not passed judgement on you, I have simply made an informed opinion of you and what your business model represent.



> I'm not asking for compensation for decoys etc. However I guess good conservation practices to mean nothing to you.


I have an advanced degree in Conservation Biology and work in the profession, so don't bother patronizing me by claiming that you somehow have a better understanding of sound conservation practices. I take that as a direct insult to me and countless others that have actually given back to the conservation community by contributing sound ideas and practices that were gained by advancing questions through the scientific process. I don't see that type of selfishness with the countless state and federal and not for profit wildlife professionals that I have had the opportunity to work with over my career. However, if you want to share your vitae, please post it so that all the people reading this forum can view your credentials. Of course, that would make you come out in public and actually print your name, which of course, is the beauty of this site, you and all the other minions can simply hide behind the anonymity of the web. I have posted my name before, so go ahead and read my posts, you will be sure to find out who I am.



> Question for you Bioman who feeds your public trust resource? I believe farmers like myself do and I'm not allowed any compensation. Who is the one that best fits take,take,take but give nothing in return? Remember Bioman I'm the one who is filling the pheasant feeders, and putting out alfalfa bales when its 30 below while you sit in your warm office. I'm the one who is caring for your public trust resource,remember that. I'm not complaining because I enjoy doing it.


As for those statements, don't confound supplemental feeding with sound conservation principles, because those animals you are feeding represent $$$ in your pocket. I have three bird feeders and a bat house in my yard, so I guess I deserve some compensation from the birding community because I am also caring for their public trust resource.



> But don't call me a market hunter or someone takes and gives nothing in return.


As for calling you are a market hunter, what do you think you are offering for a service? I would have to say that a service that delivers dead animals via a profit fits the new modernized definition of a market hunter.


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

I'm almost afraid to ever get into this debate, but I want to share a short story with you all and let you respond.

Last fall, I was hunting pheasants in the central part of the state and came across a nice area to walk. My 2 friends and I (and 2 dogs) asked the landowner if we could hunt. Now, before you get up in arms, I know we should have scouted and asked before that day but we didn't. The landowner honestly declined to let us hunt because the truck we were in had a Pheasants Forever decal and a Ducks Unlimited decal on the rear window. He politely informed us that he was sick of sportsman's groups (conservation groups) telling him what to do and purchasing land around him because he was hoping to save more money to afford the land. As I said before, he was very polite about it but still declined. Has anyone else had this type of experience? From that day on, I didn't wear my pheasants forever hat when approaching landowners.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Remmi
DU and PF both do very good work, they restore land create habitat and do what they think is best for their organizations. Is it always in the best interest of the farmer? No, sportsmen? No. At the end of the day they are creating and restoring habitat! North Dakota benefits. wildlife benefits, and they benefit from the sale of the land so they can do it all again.

Don't change who you are to gain access. I could give a rats a$$ what people on this site or out there think of me, I am good at what I do no matter what it is because I am confident in in the fact that if i put forth the effort I will achive my goal.

More often than not these days hunters are being judged by the sh!t for brains minority, that have no ethics and have that fill the bag limit at any cost, in any way mentality.

Conservation and restoration of habitat are good things, stand up for what you believe in.

Have a good one!


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Ditto,
I like to wear the Pheasants Forever and DU stuff while hunting....don't stop because one farmer wouldn't let you hunt. I've run into that before as well...normally it's because the farmer wanted to plow up some habitat and wasn't allowed to for some reason....the PF and DU emblems are the ones that normally get the blame.


----------



## Mr. B (Mar 16, 2004)

I am not disputing that DU and Pf do good things but I did have a bad experience with PF just last weekend.

While at the Game Fair in Anoka FP was raffling off a new shotgun. The two guys selling the raffle tickets were very aggresive in their manner of selling. My wife adn I were looking at puppies when the approached us to buy a ticket, when we declined to buy one right at that second, they berated us for not doing enough to support habitat and for being indifferant to the plight of the pheasant. All this without even findingout if I was even a hunter or a member of PF. I am not a member but one of the goals of going to the Game Fair was to get information on PF and some Retriever Training clubs.

I hope I just ran in to two guys that were having a bad day, but their additude was so negative that I am seriously rethinking if I want to be a part of Pf. Can anyone give me any information about PF?


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Mr. B,

I belong to PF and I make the trip out to Killdeer, ND which is about 50 miles or so North of Dickinson to go to the banquet. Why? Because they are a great bunch of folks and do good stuff out there. Is there the same around here in Fargo, Maybe. But I like to stick with something that I beleive in and get aquainted with, know what I mean?

So yes, those two guys were of a particular type that are in every organization no matter where you go. Find a group you like and stick with them.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Mr B
Please don't judge an organization by the actions of a few. It is no different than some that lump all hunters into a group because someone did something unethical or illegal.

Fight the good fight, keep all punches above the belt and support whomever *YOU* feel is going to do the best from your point of view.

Have a good one!


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

Bioman,

I'm not a guide or outfitter. I do hold an advanced degree in wildlife biology, and have a particular interest in economic incentives as a tool to further wildlife and habitat conservation. Most of the natural resource professionals I work with have similar opinions on this issue as I do.

It's funny you bring Leopold into this. I read Sand County Almanac once every few years, and always enjoy the book.

In his book "Game Managment" he writes

In some instances, it is argued, returns from selling hunting access can lead to a powerful incentive to manage land in a way that protects and enhances wildlife (Leopold 1930)



> Private landowners are regulated by federal laws that do not allow fill in wetlands. Therefore, if he decides to fill that wetland than either the State or federal government may have something to say about that matter.


I didn't say anything about draining wetlands in my earlier post. Earlier this summer while in North Dakota, I saw several ephemeral wetlands that were planted in crops. Farmers that recieve incentives for such habitat are less likely to destroy habitat.

My "melodramatic statement" of the farmers needing the extra income from hunting access is no exaggeration. The farmers I know up there welcome the extra income, and alter their land use practices because of the dollars hunters provide. They are close to going under, and every bit helps.



> Hardly a lie in ND. I just spent a considerable amount of time reading public notices on the COE website to see how many wetland creation/restoration projects had been permitted and completed in ND in the past year


It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to restore wetlands in North Dakota at the moment. It is far cheaper to purchase and preserve existing wetlands. Why don't you look up the number of acres that have been bought and preserved because of their value as recreational property.

Later,

widg


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Widg
I Know your reply was to B Man but I am going to jump in.

Question: Detail your theory "economic incentives as a tool to further wildlife habitat and conservation"

Question: Are the Natural Resource Professional that you refer to from ND

"In some instances, it is argued, returns from selling hunting access can lead to a powerful incentive to manage land in a way that protects and enhances wildlife"

Do you interpert that quote as landowners selling access or could it be in reference to states selling access through license fees?

"Farmers that receive incentives for such habitat are less likely to destroy habitat." Maybe with wetlands but I know of several instances where CRP was established and prairie was plowed to replace the base acerage.

IMO your "melodramatic statement" is just that. Farmers have the choice to plant what ever crop they want. They don't have to plant $4 wheat instead of $6 soybeans.

" It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to restore wetlands in North Dakota at the moment" I DISAGREE!!! It makes sense to restore wetlands whenever the opportunity presents itself. If we don't ND will go the way of other states, case in point Minnesota.

Have a good one!


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Bob,
I will jump in here. The economic incentive theory is the idea that a landowner will save or enhance wildlife habitat because it is a more profitable exercise than draining or plowing and farming. This is the case only if people are willing to pay for the wildlife and if they are willing to pay an amount equal to or greater than what the farmer could recieve had the land been put into another use. In other words if growing wildlife is the highest and best use from a profit standpoint it will be an incentive for farmers to grow wildlife instead of grain or cattle. Widgeon does not like caps or rules placed on the out of state hunters and guides because it reduces the number of people demanding the product. With reduced demand you will generally reduce the value of the wildlife which in turn may reduce the profit of the wildlife making it beneficial for the farmer to plant crops and drain wetlands instead of growing animals.

It is currently cheaper to buy an easement on a wetland so it cannot be farmed than it is to restore wetlands. Every time you buy a federal duck stamp your money goes to the USFWS and they use that money to purchase property rights from landowners. The best use of that money currently is to purchase easements on existing wetlands over trying to restore a wetland. It may cost $5000 to purchase an easement on 400 acres of existing wetland and it may cost $25000 to restore a wetland that has been drained.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Widgeon does not like caps or rules placed on the out of state hunters and guides because it reduces the number of people demanding the product. With reduced demand you will generally reduce the value of the wildlife which in turn may reduce the profit of the wildlife making it beneficial for the farmer to plant crops and drain wetlands instead of growing animals.


Thats exactly correct unrefutable economics :lol: 


> Every time you buy a federal duck stamp your money goes to the USFWS and they use that money to purchase property rights from landowners.


I didn't know that, thanks I guess I'll start buying them again. What else do they do with the money?? Give me the short answer please.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Thanks GG I thought it was along those lines of thought.
Am I way off base on the 1930 Leopold quote? I have not read much of his work yet but it does leave some room for interpretation.

Have a good one!


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Come on Bobm, the short version. That's no fun. I'd have to look at where the money goes.

Widgeon,
Not everyone has an advanced degree in wildlife management. If you want to be a good wildlife manager part of your job is going to be taking ideas that are somewhat complex and explaining them to people who don't have your training. :wink: Part of your job is making the public believe in what you want to do. Sometimes it involves creating the outcry from the public so you are "forced" to do the right thing.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Right on GG. I would never have guessed at Wid's profession. The impression he originally gave and it hasn't changed was that he was a guide from out of state. I might actually read his posts again. The last one sounded like a professional stance however IMO it's wrong.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Field Hunter

When Widgeon wrote 
"In some instances, it is argued, returns from selling hunting access can lead to a powerful incentive to manage land in a way that protects and enhances wildlife"

I think it was used out of context. I don't have the book handy, but saying that "it is argued" doesn't mean that the writer is condoning that type of management. As a matter of fact a statement that Leupold would condone this type of management, I think, would have him rolling in his grave. Of course the quote was meant to make us jump to that conclusion. It can also be argued that the moon is made of green cheese. Also because he has an advanced degree in biology, doesn't mean he is not a guide. It would be my guess that he works for a large landholder and manages their wildlife herd. With an attitude like his he is not a state or federal biologist that dedicates his career for the protection of habitat and wildlife species. Of course he is writing to us from, from, from where again?
Perhaps that is how most of management is done in Texas. But, then again they don't do much management on those ranches for the freelance hunter. You better make reservations and take out a small loan if you want them to shake your hand at the door.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

GG I don't really have a dog in the waterfowl fight so the short version is what I need :lol: :lol: . But based on your statement I will buy a Duck stamp for the first time since you were a gleam in your daddies eye :lol: :lol: . I've shot a lot of pheasants nears those areas so I might as well start contributing. I've decided to be a lurker on the Hot Topics forum I get too wound up about nothing on it   . I know thats hard to believe.....but I might come up with a wise crack once and a while just for the fun of it.


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

GG,

Thanks for the added info-- you are pretty much right on with my thoughts on this issue. I honestly don't have time right now to explain my thoughts fully on this forum. If this was my job (writing posts on the net), it would be different...

Bob and fieldhunter,

I'm not really sure what Leopold would think of the situation today. Much of his writing is open to interpretation. He owned some land in Wisconsin, and I don't think it was open to the general public for hunting-- he also didn't charge $100/day per gun for hunts on his place.

Plainsman,

I am not a guide, and don't work for any guides in any way. I am employed with a state agency, and do some side work for folks that manage their land for the enjoyment of their families and friends. I do not work for North Dakota, and admit that I don't know all of the factors impacting the decisions up there.

I am with BobM, and am going back to lurking. If you have any questions for me, please PM me.

Later,

widg


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Widg
Here is a (AL) quote for you.

"[W]e seem ultimately thrown back on individual ethics as a basis of conservation policy. It is hard to make a man, by pressure of law or money, do a thing which does not spring naturally from his own personal sense of right and wrong" Aldo Leopold 1925

Do you think Mr. Leopold would consider charging tresspass fees (when we all know what you are really selling) ethical?

I just can not comprehend your reasoning. I can not think of another venue where you can sell something (wildlife in your case) to another that is not yours to sell and not get arrested. Or do you consider the wildlife on your land, or the land you manage yours? Tresspass fees, access fees, selling wildlife, whatever you choose to call it is a loophole in the law.

IMO landowners should be compensated through higher license fees in lottery zoned areas *ONLY IF* they provide habitat and increase habitat and /or rest areas. I wonder how much tax income is lost by ND every year thru unreported cash transactions during hunting season. Ethics is a big word!

Have a good one!


----------



## widgeon (Jan 13, 2004)

Bob,

I have heard many bring up the "unreported income" that landowners take in. That is illegal, right? I agree they should be punished if they don't report income, as I agree all businesses should be punished (I'm sure some lawyers and doctors don't report all of their income)

Ethics is a big word. I cannot speak for AL, but feel that landowners should be rewarded for conserving habitat on their land. Incentives from the state game and fish agencies and private individuals have conserved millions of privately owned acres across the country. As a hunter and naturalist that gains so much happiness from wildlife, I feel it is my ethical duty to give back to the resource. Claiming that "I will not pay a dime to hunt" is, I feel, unethical.

Wildlife is the property of the state. Access to private property is the property of the landowner. The landowner can charge for access to private property without fear of arrest, but if he decides to sell wild teal meat or backstrap steaks from whitetails, he will be arrested. I would help put the cuffs on him.

PM me if you want to discuss further.

widg


----------

