# What is the difference?



## Lvn2Hnt (Feb 22, 2005)

Can anyone explain to me what the difference between an outfitter, who is required by law to be licensed, and a landowner/farmer charging people to hunt their land?

No, I'm not going on a witch hunt here, nor am I out to pi$$ anyone off, I'm seriously wondering where the line is drawn. I'm terrible and deciphering legal language and just wondering what really is an outfitter in the eyes of the law.

Here's the verbage on what an outfitter is....


> An "Outfitter" means a person that holds the person's business operation out to the public for hire or consideration; provides facilities or services for consideration; maintains, leases, or otherwise provides compensation for the use of land and which receives compensation from a third party for use of that land; or otherwise uses equipment or accommodations for consideration for the conduct of outdoor recreational activities, including hunting animals or birds and fishing on lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and streams. An outfitter may act as a guide.


Isn't a farmer's land considered his business?
Aren't they providing a facility for consideration?

Or, are landowners/farmers exempt from being required to have a outfitting license because they are using their own land?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I just got the most recent list from NDGF of their licesenced R outfitters. There are 120 names on the list. I have since done a search of self-proclaimed outfitters in ND and have so far found around 30 that are not licensed. I've only been looking for a half an hour and these are just ones that have a Web site. These are people that are actually claiming to be outfitters or guides and are not licensed.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

It is because they operate on land they own and supposedly do not lease land for recreational purposes, only agriculture that is then used at times for recreational purposes........? I gets complex.

Bob


----------



## Lvn2Hnt (Feb 22, 2005)

bob,
Is it even remotely possible to make a case that a landowner charging hunters could be considered an outfitter? Or it that way too much of a long shot?


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Bob....if that's true and all their land is in CRP....their money form hunters could and would easily be more than the CRP payments which would be agricultural.
Therefore their principal business would be recreational.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

There is a very simple way. Check and see if its in there FSA unit. If not its probably leased for other purposes


----------



## Lvn2Hnt (Feb 22, 2005)

Ok, guys, educate me...
g/o... what do you mean by FSA?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

L2h, All I can say is wow and bite my tongue, I'll try and be polite. FSA is the USDA office used to be call ASCS. This the place where us farmers go and report acres etc. etc. It's also where Santa Claus lives he is the jolly guy that gives us our checks,so we can vacation in the Bahamas,and buy neat stuff like new pickups and snowmobiles and 4 wheelers. I just thought I better go ahead and toss that in or someone else will be saying it. We have to report the acres we farm so if Joe the G/O says he's leasing Mr. Mean Farmers land it would show up on there. Pretty simple to me if you lease land for ag purposes it should show up at the FSA office. I'm surprised you didn't know that from reading your post to AllSund.


----------



## sierra03 (Jan 27, 2005)

Wow that was polite. Naughty or nice santa hates g/o's


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

l2h, it is the Farm Service Agency...every county has one and it is listed under Fedral in the phone book.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

l2H



> Is it even remotely possible to make a case that a landowner charging hunters could be considered an outfitter? Or it that way too much of a long shot?


Any Landowner that charges to hunt is an outfitter. NDGF just does not require any regulation if they operate on land they own or leases for agricultural purposes.

g/o you got me to laugh on that one!!! 

Bob


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

Yah, that was pretty funny....I am not laughing at you...I am laughing with you!! Right?!?! :eyeroll:


----------



## Lvn2Hnt (Feb 22, 2005)

g/o.... just want to say thanks for being an a$$. So sorry that I don't know all the abbr. of every org. there is. I am trying to get as educated about this stuff as I can. If nothing else, than to make business better for the legit g/o's, as yourself.

I'm out to get those that are ducking the law and screwing people over.

All I was asking was what the words behind FSA was. Had you have said the Farm Service Agency than I would have known what it was and what they are in charge of.

If there were fewer landowners acting as outfitters or unlicensed outfitters out there, business would not only be better for you, but other hunters wouldn't be so adamantly against you.

Instead of being one of those content to sit on the sidelines cheering quietly for those trying to make a change, I am trying to make that change. So, maybe in the future it wouldn't kill you to be slightly more respectful to someone who hasn't bashed you (as many others have), hell, I've only addressed you in the most respectful manner. As I said, I am trying to help both hunters and legit g/o's by nailing those stealing your money and locking up our land.

No, I'm not a fan of g/o's, but the definitely serve a good purpose and can be a great asset to any community, but that is only if they are operating within the limits of the law and moral ethics - as you are.


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

HELL, I'll bash any g/o anytime I can.........Esp. if they dont have the "balls" to talk to me directly...one on one. I dont know, maybe he doesnt want me to know who he is. Just a guess.

Hey g/o, give me an e-mail. [email protected]. Shut me up....I am waiting. At least give me that much. Or are you too busy buying new pickups, ATVs, and trips to the Bahamas..... :wink:

I want to hear your side....take care....


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

l2h

here is the section from the ND Century Code that pertains to your question.

*4. A license is not required for a person to provide services on real property that person owns or leases for the primary pursuit of bona fide agricultural interests or for a nonprofit organization registered with the secretary of state. The director shall determine the number of acres by county exempted from licensure by this subsection and shall publish the results. The director shall provide written information to the public on the possible liability exposure for outfitting under this subsection and on the benefits of liability insurance and proper training. *

g/o gets his a$$ handed to him every time he enters this site. O/G's in ND have been painter with a broad brush dipped in Sheldon and a few others with questionable moral texture. I hate that!! KB and g/o as well as many others could be sharing insights with us much more than they do but every post from them brings a few "painters opinions" to the thread and it usually gets ugly. Like I have posted before I consider g/o a friend, not because of what he does but because of who he is. Learn to take some things with a grain of salt. You will eventually pick up on it. :wink:

Bob


----------



## Lvn2Hnt (Feb 22, 2005)

Bob, thanks for the info. So, if a landower primarily uses (makes the bulk of his income) off of agricultural activities from his land, than he is free to charge for access to his land? But, the Director must publish those individuals/land that are exempt from needing a license? Am I reading this right?

I have no problem with g/o, but his "tone" was unnecessary and those are the types of responses that will continue to perpetuate other's dislike of him.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

L2H

landowners are free to charge access no matter where their income is derived, farming, ranching, outfitting etc. the only stipulation is that if land is leased for agricultural purposes, if it is leased for outfitting purposes only the O/G license is now required. if it is leased for agricultural purposes, farmed and then used for outfitting no license is required. Correct on the director publishing this info. I have yet to see a copy of any report, and I have asked.

Bob


----------



## Lvn2Hnt (Feb 22, 2005)

Bob, thanks for the explanation.

I'm not trying to find a way to screw landowners/farmers out of what they rightfully have the option to make money on. I'm just trying to find some way to even the playing field a bit.

I just don't think it's right that well-meaning and properly licensed/educated (in the eyes of the State) g/o's are being undermined by two-bit operations.

I don't think it's right that any farmer/landowner can add a few rooms to a farmhouse/barn, advertise that they are an outfitter, charge to take people hunting, etc... and not be held to the same standards/expectations as other g/o's are.

Does anyone else feel the same way? Does anyone have any ideas?


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Lvn2hnt,

I'm not too sure what you mean by "... well-meaning... g/o's ...", but I'll take a crack at your confusion.

Perhaps what you're pickup on is the confusion between what's legal and what's moral/ethical/proper in terms of land use for game animals. The two are different, and folks are trying to tell you that the two are the same. You're correct to not be fooled.

Where I own land it has always been viewed a tawdry and pathetic that a landowner would charge someone money to pursue game animals. Really, in the same boat as selling sex at the bar. Game animals are transient, and they belong to all the people. One would never dream of charging for something they didn't own. I imagine that was true in ND as well.

However, the paths have diverged with a high road and a low road. The high road is the formation of statutes proclaiming that game animals belong to the people, and land owners shouldn't be able to charge for access to something they don't own. Alberta and Sask have these, and this is why they will remain the premier destinations that they are.



> WILDLIFE ACT of Alberta
> 
> http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/Documents/acts/W10.CFM
> 
> ...


Unfortunately, Texas and places like that have taken the low road. Folks feel they have a right to charge for access to something they don't own. Now, ND is at the fork in the road, and there are certainly a lot of folks that want to take the low road, and they have actually fooled a lot of people that this is proper - that this is "their right". I disagree.

Unfortunately, the difficulty is convincing those folks who have already been fooled. Try it here for a few days - you'll see what I mean.

M.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

L2H
It is a difficult question at best and the Next Game and Fish Director may very well have a different vision for ND. Property rights issues with landowners in ND have no degrees of separation when you combine them with wildlife issues. There is really nothing in the current laws that allows the NDGF to have independent and complete control of the items and issues in their charge. A happy medium to MRN's post would be to regulate Landowner O/G operations and have one classification and one set of rules and standards. I can not see the ND legislative climate as it exists in ND today adopting the Canadian statute without some major infraction and a corresponding overwhelming grass roots effort. ND Property right are what they are and ND law does say that wildlife is owned by the state, here is the Century Code section: 
*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 herein provided. Any person catching, killing, taking, trapping, or possessing 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. The state, through the office of attorney general, may institute and maintain any action for damages against any person who unlawfully causes, or has caused within this state, the death, destruction, or injury of wildlife, except as may be authorized by law. The state has a property interest in all protected wildlife.
This interest supports a civil action for damages for the unlawful destruction of wildlife by willful or grossly negligent act or omission. The director shall adopt by rule a schedule of monetary values of various species of wildlife, the values to represent the replacement costs of the wildlife and the value lost to the state due to the destruction or injury of the species, together with other material elements of value. In any action brought under this section, the schedule constitutes the measure of recovery for the wildlife killed or destroyed. Notwithstanding the director's schedule of monetary values, an individual who unlawfully takes a bighorn sheep, elk, or moose is subject to a civil penalty for the replacement value of the animal of five thousand dollars for a bighorn sheep, three thousand dollars for an elk, and two thousand dollars for a moose. For a male
bighorn sheep, elk, or moose over two and one-half years of age, the civil penalty for the
replacement value of the animal is an additional fifty percent of the penalty. The funds recovered_

Landowners know this law is in existence they take it upon themselves to throw up property rights and say they are not charging for the wildlife, only the access to their land.

Bob


----------



## GarySND (Nov 4, 2005)

I am new to this forum so excuse me if I don't understand some of the thinking here. All my life I have wondered why we pay NDGF to hunt and not the farmer that feeds the game, raises all the game and provides the land for the game and hunters to hunt on. While up here in NW ND the only time you see NDGF is when you sign your check to buy your Lic. How many farmers/landowners are there that think they should get to go to Bismarck and stay in a Hotel free, go to a movie free, pick up what you want at Home Depot or Dan's for nothing, after all those places are the income of the owners the same as the landowners land is his. 
It seems great when the local grocery store, hardware store, gas station, cafe and hotels make good money on hunters coming in and use the private property of others, but listen to the screaming if the, heaven forbid, landowner who raises, feeds and supplies the place for the wildlife and hunters alike make a penny off of all this. 
I just thought I would toss out a observation. 
On another matter, I think it was last year the IRS added another 13% tax on crp land. They decided after around 20 years that the landowner had way to much control over the crp contract and it would be subject to SS tax and wasn't considered cash rent anymore. In this area where crp rate have dropped from around $40/acre twenty years ago to $17/acre now it sounds like not much land will be left in crp after 07 with the extra taxes.
:beer:
Sorry one more good one, lets say a farmer has a different hobby then hunting, take camping for instance. Do you suppose he would be shot or just arrested if he pulled his camper to Bismarck and set up for the weekend on the nicest front lawn he could find (assuming it wasn't posted of course) or would they be kind enough to let him off with a lecture on private property rights?


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

GarySND

Se my post above.ND law says the citizens of ND own the wildlife of ND. Landowners included. I own land, a lot of it, I put in food plots, I receive payments for CRP. and in my opinion it is wrong to charge anyone to hunt. It is just a matter of personal choice.

Bob


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Hey Gary, thanks for coming to the forum. Don't know if you are a farmer or not as you didn't say. I am.



> All my life I have wondered why we pay NDGF to hunt and not the farmer that feeds the game, raises all the game and provides the land for the game and hunters to hunt on.


In my humble opinion farmers don't raise wild game. If they do they better get a permit. Most game is on the land in spite of farmers, not because of them. We farmers have drained just about everything we could and would have done more if we could get the water uphill. Shelterbelts are being bulldozed out left and right and not replanted. The only reason sloughs aren't burned down here is because it's too wet, not because we are looking out for God's critters. Very few of us feed game intentionally either. If game gets the waste grain before we work it in, they're lucky. Most of my aquaintances are also farmers and I can think of very few who bought land just for wildlife, but all of those that did, seem to share access willingly. Hats off to them.

Like Bob said, the ownership of wildlife by the state is not an opinion issue, it is the law. Period. Wildlife ownership is a property rights issue of public property. So is the matter of selling it. By granting access to hunters I can help local businesses stay profitable, instead of trying compete against them. Helping someone else kind of gives you a good feeling, you know?


----------



## MResner (Mar 14, 2002)

Dick,

Congratulations on another great post! I so appreciate your brutal honesty!

Just the other day, I was talking with an area businessman out here in the SW and he related that his hunter business is down drastically again this year. I wasn't surprised at that point, but I sure was dumbfounded at what he said next... "The farmers around here are just pricing us out of the market." WOW! Somebody is starting to catch on.


----------



## GarySND (Nov 4, 2005)

Dick,
I am sure your right on the farmers not personally raising the wild game, I myself have never witnessed that either. But I still think in the NW corner of North Dakota if you took all the farmland and the game on it out of the picture there wouldn't be much left of wildlife, and paying the state for the privilige to hunt would get you nothing. Which was my point about paying the wrong people to hunt, not that I think anyone should charge to hunt anyway. But if we all hunted wildlife off of state land and wildlife grown with feed from state grown crops and grains they would only need to sell a couple of boxes of shells a year. 
I work at a bank and farm also, I suppose most of my oberservations come from seeing crops sold and every one else in the food chain making a much better living off the crops then farmers do, and over the years notice the same thing in the hunting arena. Only here popular opinion seems to be (since the state owns the game) the farmer should make zero dollars and everyone else should make a living off it. Of all the people with thier fingers in the hunting pie, the farmer and his land is the only one we can't live without. 
Thanks for the forum, it really is nice to have a place to use my s--t stirring stick.  :beer:


----------



## GarySND (Nov 4, 2005)

Dick
You mentioned there is no place for the wildlife to eat on the farmland around you as most of the water is drained and the trees all buldozed and you guys work your excess crops in the ground before the wildlife can eat it.
Up here most people are pretty much no till and we have never taught the wildlife they couldn't go in our fields and eat crops until after the harvest or after we work it down. We see them out there all year round. 
Most of the pheasants in our country are here because of the farmers not inspite of them. We will see the post office sending out PowerBall checks way before we see NDGF doing something up here with the money we send them, I have been in Bismarck, seen their palace and the vehicles around it. I no longer wonder where that money goes.  We clean paths all winter in our lentil, pea and durum fields for the birds to eat and we feed them. I have a picture someplace on this computer of last Thanksgiving of over 400 pheasants out feeding in our fields without help from the state.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Gary

I have hunted in that part of the state many times, I laugh at people when they say there is no waterfowl or upland up there.

Thank You for what you do to sustain the wildlife population.

What would you like to see the NDGF do in your area to help with the wildlife population management? Just wondering.

There is no doubt that the middleman gets the maximum benefit from the product that farmers produce. I have always looked at the farmers being the middleman in the pay to hunt picture but they are selling something that is not theirs to sell. I would be in violation of Federal Law if I captured or killed wildlife and set up a booth on the corner of anywhere USA and sold the wildlife. O/G's sell their services which just happens to be the harvesting of wildlife. another area of not Black or White but somewhere in the middle. ND law says they can do it so it is legal. As I alluded to in my previous post, The farmers own the land and it is up to them if they want to charge access to their property, no ND laws that prohibit or restrict this in any way. Different points of view.

Bob


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Gary, great to talk to a rural banker with his finger on the pulse of the local economy and how commercial hunting fits into that economy.

What is your opinion of this true scenario?
An ND resident with some major money wants into a commercial trophy deer operation, so he buys quite a chunk of good habitat-wooded hills-that were used for ranching. He leases a few more chunks to tie it into one piece. Then runs trophy hunts and rents it out for grazing in off season.

Since he wants good habitat to retain deer, he cuts the grazing rate for local ranchers and ups the price per AU. 150 fewer head of calves produced locally, no trucking fee, no sales commision, no vet expense, no tractor, bailer, manure spreader, mower, horse trailer replacement, less fencing expense, no feed bill-salt-mineral-hay-creep feed, no calf check in the local bank to lend out. No bull sales to purchase from or replacement heifers purchased. One less farm family in the community (they were renting and had to move off) so there are 2 less kids in school. No family living expense from them anymore. This outfitter wants to keep the trophy bucks on his side of the fence during deer season, but doesn't worry about the other 11 months when they are chowing down on neighbors fields. Nine neighbors just on the south side alone. And of course the strech of county road going by here has an extremely high deer-vehicle accident rate.

I'd like your take on how that benifits anyone except the outfitter? Since you are a rural banker.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Bob, I have a question for you. One of your comments was "I have always looked at the farmers being the middleman in the pay to hunt picture but they are selling something that is not theirs to sell". I have seen others make similar comments and I take this to mean that they believe that wild game belongs to everyone. I got to thinking about this very same thing the other day and it dawned on me, if this were true then why would I, as a non resident be charged more for license and tags than a resident is charged just to hunt something that belongs to me. If I'm in ND, they don't charge me more for gas or a hamburger just because I'm from out of state. I don't know of any state that doesn't charge non residents more for hunting but it does kind of throw the wild game belongs to everyone thinking off balance.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Gohon



> 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,


I guess I read this as stating wildlife belongs to ND residents.

Bob


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Dick, I always love your scenerio it is as true as can be. Only problem is this happens all the time except this is an outfitter,shame shame shame. Tell me what is the difference when a large farmer from 40 miles away comes in and leases a bunch of land some small farmer was farming. This is the same scenerio that guy bought his fuel and fert. etc. etc. from the local community. Now the large farmer buys in large amount so get most of his fuel,fert etc. from ditributors. To me both scenerio's are the same with the exception one is an outfitter. Whats the answer? Outlaw large farms and outfitters? Last time I checked I was still living in America.


----------



## frosty (Dec 6, 2002)

"Most of the pheasants in our country are here because of the farmers not inspite of them. We will see the post office sending out PowerBall checks way before we see NDGF doing something up here with the money we send them, I have been in Bismarck, seen their palace and the vehicles around it. I no longer wonder where that money goes. "

Gary,

Pheasants are abundant in North Dakota due to CRP. Did pheasants exist before CRP, yes. Did pheasants exist in the numbers they do now prior to CRP, absolutely not. My family has farmland that is in CRP, I don't think we can take very much credit for having 10 times the birds now vs. 1985. 
Essentially we have been lucky enough as a state to harvest 600,000 pheasants because of the checks landowners receive from the federal government.

While I don' t know exactly how much money anyone at the G&F gets paid, I do know quite a few people who work for the Dept and I can assure you they are not getting rich of your license fees. I don't have a problem paying the very small fees that we do to be able to hunt this great state and help pay for managing public areas, paying for PLOTS, stocking fish, providing boat ramps, and paying the salaries of professionally trained biologists to manage our wildlife. The game and fish biologists have dedicated their life to managing the state's wildlife resources because that is what they love to do, most definitely not for the money. I deeply respect that, and it's too bad you don't.

The fancy pickups I usually see are the ones sitting in front of the farms and ranches I visit during the year.


----------



## GarySND (Nov 4, 2005)

Dick,
As a banker I would tell the guy he is nuts put your money elsewhere. If we are looking to blame someone for him buying the land and doing what he is doing, I guess we should be looking at the guy who sold the land to him and the ones that leased the other land to him. But it's sure not his fault the old landlord kicked the old renters off and sold/leased to him. At least I found one person that agree with me that animals eat the farmers crops, and not just the states. How he keeps the trophies on his side of the fence during deeer season I sure have no clue. I don't think this outfitter is benifitting the local farmers any, but the piles of people he brings in must help someone unless he manufactures everything used right where he lives like the gas, bullets, lodgeing, food, snacks. You never know if farmers got a share of the pie over the last decades from the money spent in the state on hunting maybe this wouldn't be happening. I read there is millions spent and up in my area the landowners recieve zero. I unfortunatly tend to be like everyone else and only my hindsight is 20/20 :beer:


----------



## GarySND (Nov 4, 2005)

Frosty,

I still contend if you take the famers land out of the equasion in North Dakota, you could hunt most of the pheasnts with two boxes of shells. Being in crp doesn't make in yours, mine or anyone elses no matter what the popular opinion is. That is like thinking since I pay taxes on both sides of the road I can drive on either side. 
I was talking about the building and the state vehicles piled around the office, I have no idea what what the salarys are or care what vehicle they own themsleves. If your interested in what they are paid you can find out as its puplic information. Up where I live you never see them is my observation, I am not saying they aren't doing there job wherever they are. Around here the most pheasants are where the farmers raise there own plots for the wildlife and feed them in the winter. Heck we have some farmers that are so dedicated to the wild life they even run John Deere combines so there is more food left in the field for them. 
 
I guess if a farmer has a new pickup he should probably pay us to come hunt his land? What does a farmers personal vehicle or anyone elses have to do with anything?? 
:beer:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> If we are looking to blame someone for him buying the land and doing what he is doing, I guess we should be looking at the guy who sold the land to him and the ones that leased the other land to him.


Gary, I have to disagree with you here. The incentive to buy this ground was furnished by the legislature when they allowed NR buck tags to go to outfitters. Take away the guarenteed tag and the operation collapses. This outfitter is vertically integrated bypassing local purchases.

Another question for you as a banker: Check out the thread about the "land rush" at Regant. How does the transfer of land ownership to NR affect the state? What I mean is the rental payment, gov program payment, and appreciation now being banked outside? Is that a benifit economically for ND? Do local folks who are displaced by these purchases have a benifit to ND? Because again, the "land rush" is driven by the guarenteed NR license. Your thoughts?

g/o, the differance between the large farmer and the outfitter displacing the local economy is that the farmer deals in livestock and grain (private property) while the outfitter is selling public property he does not own.  The state does not give the farmer the incentive for that action, but it does give the outfitter the incentive with the guarenteed NR licenses.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Dick, We are talking about 100 state wide with no guarentee of even getting one its a so called lottery. I doubt that outfitter would recieve more than 2 if he is really lucky. How the hell can you sell 2 hunts and make that pay? If he is doing archery thats another thing. But you were referring to the money he takes away from the local area. Same is being done everyday as farms continue to expand small towns die off.


----------



## frosty (Dec 6, 2002)

Gary,

I was just pointing out why we have the pheasants that we do in North Dakota. It is because of CRP. Without this program we would not have the birds we do. I was not trying to say we should all have access because of it. CRP is still private land, and I agree the landowner should still have control over access to it. I don't think anybody will argue with you that without private land in North Dakota, hunting opportunities would be small. Beings our state is made up of 90/10 private to public ownership. And if I remember right the G&F is appreciatve of this as this past year I thought they went around the state giving free dinners to landowners thanking them for allowing hunters.

I apologize. I thought your comment was about personal vehicles around the G&F referring to the employees of the Dept thinking they make a lot of money and drive fancy vehicesl. You were obvioulsy talking about something different that I misunderstood. I guess I'm not familiar with their pile of vehicles they have around the building.


----------



## GarySND (Nov 4, 2005)

Dick,
Your probably right, but I still don't think once that law was passed anyone from the state went out and made the landowner sell his land and kick the other people off. It still comes down to the guy who sells because if he doesn't sell/lease nothing will happen.
The big sale at Regent turn out to be a guy from North Dakota, I am not sure if the county will benifit from the higher land value there and thus higher property taxes or not. If someone from out of state buys the land yes the state and the locals will lose a lot of benifits. But this is happening all over the state without a sale taking place and its on the land that is still being farmed also not just the crp. People die and kids inherit the land and the kids left the state years ago. Most of the farmland that is farmed is becomeing absentee owned this way. The money going out of state from this makes the crp payments leaving the state look like a spit in the bucket. Not only that but the people left here have to maintain the roads and mow the ditches for the people that died and gave the land to people that don't live here anymore.
Not sure what the anwers are, in a free society is tough to find easy answers.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Gary there is a pile of ground in western and central ND going for NR hunting. The guarenteed NR license drives it. Just like in g/os scenario of corporate farming, it is driven by no payment limitations on the producer. If farmers are going to roll into commercial hunting, they want unlimited NR licenses which encourages NR land purchases..................... Why intentionally throw gas on a fire? I don't get it.

I don't know if the Rep from Cando who ws high bidder on *one parcel *is in commercial hunting or not, I do know his voting record is strictly anti-North Dakota hunter on hunting bills. He has been on KFGO a number of times for the Cando Duck Daze, always had lots of good to say about NR money, but never mentioned ND money.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

> The big sale at Regent turn out to be a guy from North Dakota, I am not sure if the county will benifit from the higher land value there and thus higher property taxes or not.


No the county will not, since agricultural land in ND is taxed based on productive value and not market value.

http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/pdf_v ... ftype=.pdf


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

I wonder why Mr. Cando Rep bought the land he did. Was it because he couldn't access land down there without paying a fee? Was it because he was tired of not getting access to land in Cando?

All the rest have stated they bought the land for recreational purposes.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

This is really getting funny with the class envy that goes on here. Geno the rep. whom purchased the land in Regent has buckets full of money. I'm sure he bought the land for an investment, so what!!!!! The man is as sharp as the day is long he didn't get as wealthy as he is for being lazy or stupid. L2h the man has land in the Cando area as well as several other states I don't think finding a place to hunt or paying an access charge was a problem. He see's this as an oppurtunity and many of the people on this forum where in his financial shape would do the same. I love it Dick he is anti resident hunters on hunting bills. Why because he doesn't get an A rating from NoDak Outdoors, who does in rural ND? The only ones getting high ratings are the one who live along one of the 4 lane highways in this state. I'm thankful we have intellegent people like Geno in our legislature.


----------



## GarySND (Nov 4, 2005)

Dick,
I have not heard of any land in NW ND being tied up for hunters R or N/R that could be the case in other parts of the state. I guess it just proves the point when you hear the saying I am from the gov. and I am hear to help you. It's just best to run the other way. How many lic. are these guides each promised to get so they can make the big investments in land and leasing anyway? It must be a pile of them, I know I have no clue. I also know of no famers in this area that want commerical hunting from anyone R or N/R most of would rather just see it all go away. Now being deer season I have heard the complaint they cant buy there deer tag like we used to, now they have to get off the tractor in springs work and send money to the state to see if you will win a lottoery to hunt in the township you live in. I know that burns a lot of them. The state answer of course was the landowner tag whcih just causes more posting because they can only get there deer on your own land so they post it so they have a better chance.
As far as Gene and the land sale down at Regent he and his brothers and friends have all the land they could hunt up in Cando they are good sized farmers. Who knows why he wanted this, might have just wanted a hunk of land he wouldn't have to worry about getting flooded from devils lake. Or for no other reason then he thought it would be nice to have.
A bit of the land around Watford is heading into the 1000/acre range that makes the land at Regent look cheap. Supposedly the people who can't afford to fight the real money that is buying up Montana are liking the looks of the badlands area.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

> A bit of the land around Watford is heading into the 1000/acre range that makes the land at Regent look cheap. Supposedly the people who can't afford to fight the real money that is buying up Montana are liking the looks of the badlands area


I think we knwe that was coming......... Very sad :eyeroll:


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

g/o: You are correct. I would do the same if I was financially capable. In fact, I am in the process of aquiring 450 acres. Working on the cost sharing for trees and grassland plantings as we speak.

See this is what g/o's and the legislation have forced many of us to do. It is only going to get worse now. Individuals and groups of sportsmen are going to get together whether they be R's or NR's and start purchasing land. They will outbid farmers for the land taking it out of production.

That is 450 acres that unfortunately won't be rented out next fall.

I am left with no more options. Public land is hit too hard west and so many are leasing to outfitters or charging to get on their land, it is more affordable for me to purchase my own and insure myself and my kids a place to hunt.

I know you allow youth to hunt, but will you do that forever? I just can't take that chance, otherwise there really isn't a need for me to stay in the state if I can't hunt. With a B.S., M.S. and now working on my Ph.D; I am quite sure I am not lazy or stupid.

My only point to my post was to ask the question why he bought it. If you say he bought it for an investment, then I believe you.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

L2h, Tell me please tell me more. how has legislation forced you to buy land? Also how have o/g's forced you to buy land?


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

g/o: This is going to get too lengthy, but I will try my best.

Where I grew up, I used to be able to walk for miles and never see a poster. Now basically their are 4 landowners that now own the land. (8-10,000 acres each) Two are outfitting and will not allow me on there (I can't even walk up to the hill that I buried my yellow lab on). I have asked repeatedly in the late part of the season and they want money. The other two have "friends" that only have access to their land now. "Friends" meaning they take money under the table.

I used to go down to the Mott/Flasher area as well, but public land was either unsafe to go on because of the amount of hunters on it already or I couldn't get access because Cannonball was leasing it. I tried Mallard Island one time as well, that was scary. People shooting everywhere.

I then moved over to the SE corner of the state. Some of the land is fairly good for grouse, but when I asked for pheasants, I was told that costs money. Sheldon Schlecht had so many acres leased and then many others in the Medina area followed suit. Another opportunity taken away.

Are there places to hunt in the state that aren't posted, yeah, but the pressue on it has been incredible.

As far as legislation goes. I find it funny that our natural resource committee has done nothing to conserve our natural resources. All they want to do is exploit it. IMHO the hunter pressure concept was a great piece of work that NDGF put together.

I am not sure how much land you have leased up. But 10 years ago, did you have that same land locked up? How about 15 or 20 years ago? How many R's or NR's hunted that land before you came along? Let's just say you have 10,000 acres leased up. In a good season you bring in 100 sportmen? just guessing here. 10 years ago, if that land was all open and there were 500 sportsmen that hunted that same 10,000 acres whether they be R's or NR's, wouldn't 500 sportsmen bring in more into the economy than your 100? And out of that 500, 250 were residents which means they probably were there multiple times which would mean more gas, lodging, eating out, etc...

There are still a few places back home that aren't posted, but guys were sitting next to them at 2am the day before pheasant opener just to make sure they had a place to hunt as well. They are pounded on day in and day out.

I can't even begin to talk about landowner relationships that I have tried building over the years. I could go on an on about things I have done and the expenses out of my pocket to try and help these landowners out only to be told "I can't let you go in there".

I am not ****** at them. That is there land. They bought it and have a right to do what they want with it. They pay the taxes.

What other options do I have?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

L2h, Again you bring nothing to the table. You bring up one point on the legislature HPC it failed so that is your only reason? Come on farming has been getting bigger has for as long as I remeber,are to legislate how large a farm can be? How about the things the legislature did pass like residents only the first week on PLOTS. We have stricter laws on guiding than any state in the union. I will give you a piece of advice don't go where the big o/g's are. Hunt the fringe areas they are doing well,and knock on some doors.


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

I know that we have discussed this many times, but really it is a simple thing that is moving North Dakota towards a non-freelancing state.

Here goes... SUPPLY AND DEMAND... that is the simplest way to explain it. Just ten years ago there was allot less DEMAND for hunting access compared to the SUPPLY of the land that was available.

Now as hunting has increased in popularity by BOTH residents and non-residents this contributed to an increase in the DEMAND for hunting access which then decreased the SUPPLY of land that was accessable.

What happens when we see SUPPLY decrease and DEMAND increase....SCARCITY. What does SCARCITY cause? Increases in prices...for access, which may be the price of an acre of land or what was once a free service is now a pay service to subtitute the degree of scarcity essentially a short tem lease of the property(lease), even if only for a day.

So as the price increases on a per acre piece so will the amount of land that will go up for sale(law of supply), by attracting new sellers and by increasing the amount offered by sellers already in the market.

The worst part about this cycle is that we are only at the beginning of it. We are a long ways from reaching a point in price where suppliers have sold as much as they are willing to sell and buyers have reached the limit that they will be able to buy it(market equilibrium). At this point we will enter the long-term(annually) lease era and we will begin to start to see essentially co-op purchases such as the duck clubs of California, where the price has become so high that individuals will have to pool resources(shares) in order to afford to have access. (I have friends there that pay $10,000 a year for a single membership to exclusive clubs)

Demand may reach the point that even state lands will need to be controlled by a lottery drawing the morning of for designated blinds so pressure and safety can be directly controlled(already done in amny states)

I am not saying that this is something that ever will happen, but it is the simple economics of the situation and examples from other areas.

My :2cents:


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

nothing to the table???

Hunt the fringe areas so I push more birds onto leased land?

I don't remember ever saying farmers should be restricted. With the cost of putting in the crop versus price, farmers need acres to make the pay line. No where in my post did I degrade farmers or want to put a stop to large scale farms.

All I said was that these farms are getting bigger and have chosen to outfit or restrict R's hunting. That alone is forcing me to purchase land for myself and others. No where did I say they should be restricted. You are putting words in my mouth.

g/o's are leasing more and more land up and you are arent' leasing marginal land, you lease the most productive land. You said that yourself on a another post. That also pushes me and others to think about purchasing our own land.

Don't go where the big g/o's are? So know I am force to go to Pembina to hunt pheasants?

I have knocked on doors. Many still allow me to hunt and there are some great landowners out there, but access is becoming harder and harder each year. In 10 years, where do I go then? How about 15? At the current rate, I WILL be trying to hunt pheasants in Pembina.

NDGF has done a great job with PLOT acres, but there isn't enough for the amount of pressure out there. You also have to remember that certain PLOT acres have different rights to them which means the landowner can still go in and hay that land from year to year which means no cover for wildlife. I will show you one north of Wilton where the landowner had the right, so he went in and hayed everything, even the cattails. Other PLOTS acres are in areas of the state that don't hold much wildlife (Grand Forks County). So you can talk about the acres, but some of that stuff is non-productive (even the landowner doesn't get money for putting it into PLOTS for certain areas of the state).

HPC was my only dissapointment with the legislation.

I guess if that isn't enough for the table for you, so be it. That is enough for mine and just like Gene up in Cando I have the right to own land too.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

A lot of it is related to the pheasant population and the deer population south of the interstate. Our waterfowl hunters are a small number of the overall hunting pressure. There is a direct correlation between the amount of posted land and the pheasant population and the increase in the amount of deer hunting across the southern tier of counties. With the large increase in hunters for these two species much land is no longer open to walk in hunting. However, with a little patience and a little personality much of this land is also open to hunting. Being a local, since the beginning of the pheasant season, I have hunted land that is posted twice in the last month by contacting land owners and the only reason I did that is because I had friends coming to hunt and wanted them to have a sucessful hunt. Otherwise, I have just gone out like the rest of the "Joes" and it is rare that I don't get a limit of birds. Friday, Sunday and last night I went out and in less than and hour had 3 cocks. I passed on numerous "road" birds" so that I could hunt with my dog on a walk. These places are out there but to drive 100 miles and just have birds jump at the barrel of your gun is just not going to happen. It takes time and effort in the form of scouting to be sucessful. You have to change as the conditions change and the only way you can do that is to be out the field time after time as the season progresses. It is all part of the sport of "hunting." I would have to say that this is the most "hunters" I have seen in this area including many from out of state and from out of this area. Is this bad, well only when I pull up to a spot to hunt and I see that license plate from Minn, Wisc. etc. but when I go uptown and see the motels, resturants and bars full on Fri. and Sat. nights I am happy for my friends that own these establishments. This is also the most posted signs I have seen that have names on them that are not from this area. This is a bit more disturbing for me but so far I think that I can deal with it. It is a trend and unless you are from the area I don't think most people have a grasp on all the angles that are involved because you don't know the pulse of the community. Where it is headed remains to be seen but I do know that it is something I will deal with because I do not want to lose any of my friends over hunting. [/i]


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

I am from a small town and have family that own cafes and motels. It is great for business, but the problem is how sustainable is it with the decrease in access? That has yet to be established, but I think it may foolish to assume that we will buck the numbers and will be allot different than the other states that ahve seen this happen. Just my two cents...again.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

L2h, Again if you will remeber you said that because of legislation and g/o's you are forced to buy land. Again you come up with the same old lame excuse because they didn't pass HPC. Which by the way has nothing to do with pheasant hunting. I'm sorry if you feel I'm rude but I get a little tired of people putting the blame on the legislature. We live in a democracy and this is the way things work. I don't agree with all the laws and think many are stupid but they are there and I will abide. Now all I hear on this forumn is HPC didn't pass and thats bad. I know some worked very hard on this but the majority of you just sit and whine.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

g/o

Not trying to start anything just asking for your opinion.

Why do you think every time NDGF has licensing and testing sessions for O/G's the room is full?

Why do you think that recreational land purchases continue to rise?

Why do you think that leasing habitat has become so wide spread?

Why has pay hunting become so wide spread?

Just looking for your thought on the subjects.

Bob


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Simple Bob as ndkid said supply and demand. As you know Bob there is lots of money out there. Are we to legislate the rich? North Dakota is the last state to be affected by this. We are the last frontier, not everyone likes whats happening. But what should our solution be ban nonresident hunters? put more restrictions on them? Charge higher prices give them less days? Not try to be a smart a$$ here and do not take this wrong. I hear many people on this site holler freelance this and freelance that. But all the legislation we have done has only hindered the non resident freelance hunter in my opinion. The rich will always be able to hunt so by passing laws to increase fees and less days only chasaes away the freelance hunter. If we want to do something constructive let try and keep our freinds to east coming.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

g/o: If you want to call it whining, so be it. I am just stating the facts. Access is and will continue to be a problem. I am just saying that this is going to force us to purchase our own land.

You keep poking on the legislation issue but not on anything else I stated. Did I not state that the only dissapointment I had was HPC.

I have asked alot of questions of you and you seem to keep dodging them.

Here are questions for you.

Where is the future of hunting for those in ND who don't own land or who cannot afford to own land?

What about my scenerio about 100 hunters versus 500?

Do you see any repercussions from g/o's on ND's economy? In 20 years?

We are loosing our youth everyday to out of state employers. You said you have a youth preserve. that is great, but what happens when they turn 18?

In my orginal post, I said legislation AND g/o's were forcing me to buy land. I believe g/o's have more of an impact than the legislation right now.

You can't quantify me like I am some Fargo guy who shows up in western ND looking for land to hunt on the Friday night before an opener. I am not even remotely close to that. I have spent a great deal of time knocking on doors, updating my Plat books, sending emails, fixing fence, mowing ditches, volunteering on the fire department, and everything else in between. I grew up in central ND, so I am only 2 hours from my parent's place. My bachelors is in Agriculture, so I have done a great deal of work with farmers, yet I still get told, "I am sorry, I cannot let you hunt".

Right now it is marginal for me accessing good quality private land, but it is quickly deteriorating. So I am taking it into my own hands and purchasing land. Now you are chastising me for it and telling me to hunt PLOTS and fringe areas.

Enlighten me on the future of ND hunting and what it should look like.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

g/o

Ok tell me how you propose to level the playing field, while trying to preserve some degree of quality hunting?

Bob


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

L2h, First of all and lastly you were the one who brought up that about the legislature and g/o's. I only asked you to tell me why and as I thought there was nothing there. Now as far the rest of your question I'll try to answer some. As far as the ones who own land and don't? Sorry this has been the same issue as long as we have hunting. If don't own land you get permission. Do I as a landowner owe you a place to hunt? As far as ND economy in the future I'll say this. Get rid off the dollars non residents bring into this state you will definately feel the pinch. Lastley you are worried about a place to hunt yet in another post you claimed you owned 1000 acres of land. Now you claim to be buying 450 and you have a degree in Ag. but yet you didn't know what the FSA office was. I would ask where ever you went to school for a refund.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

g/o

Wrong L2h there are two of them. Be nice now!! 

Bob


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

What the heck are you talking about???? 1000 acres?? where did that come from? FSA post?? I have no idea what you are talking about.

Show me the post!! I think you have me mistaken with someone else.

I would never post that I own 1000 acres. Wished I did. I worked very closely with the Farm Service Agency in a previous position. Trust me, I know who they are.

_"Do I as a landowner owe you a place to hunt?"_ Of course you dont'. I have never eluded to this kind of hearsay.

_"As far as ND economy in the future I'll say this. Get rid off the dollars non residents bring into this state you will definately feel the pinch."_
And loosing resident hunters won't?


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Bob,
Do you think g/o actually cares about leveling the playing field. He is a capitalist (I don't think that is bad, as I am one as well). Capitalists don't care about leveling the playing field (only socialists do) in fact they want to do the exact opposite of leveling the playing field.

My only problem with g/o is that he chastises individuals for using the economic system and the democratic system to change the playing field so they have the advantage (like any good capitalist would).

He cries foul everytime the other capitalist participants (who have different goals then him) try to influence the system.



> I know some worked very hard on this but the majority of you just sit and whine.


Just like he sits and wines about how it isn't fair to create all kinds of laws to stop the g/o industry which aren't to his advantage.



> I will give you a piece of advice don't go where the big o/g's are. Hunt the fringe areas they are doing well,and knock on some doors.


This guy doesn't care about you, he only cares about himself. Just accept that fact and go about your business. There is no point in discussing these issues with him.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

See you are cornered and now have to play dirty to try and make me out for someone I am not. You keep putting words in my mouth or try making me out to be some kind of bandit who thinks he is obligated to hunt your land. I have never said any of those things.

All I have said is that it is my belief that their are two entities that are forcing some of us to purchase land for ourselves.

Still didn't answer all of my questions.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Bob, As far as leveling the playing field I'm not complaining much. As you know I think the week of resident hunting is bad but thats my opinion. I disagree with the quality of hunting in ND issue many bring up. Hunting has never been better than it is right now in this state. Bob I think you will agree with me on this. Remeber the hunting days of when we were young compared to now. Look at things we are hunting Canada geese in Sept. because they are a nuisance. I never shot one untill I was 27 years old and had to drive many miles to do that. Duck populations are at all time levels, snow geese are so over populated that we can hunt them in the spring. Use electronic calls,no plugs shoot after sundown, a poachers dream. Pheasant numbers are up with soil bank years which we remeber right. You can get multible deer licenses some guys will shoot 6 deer legally. When I was young you were lucky to see a buck,now I pick and choose. The quality is not the issue Bob,access is. Now as far HPC goes why don't you guys just go and put a bill in saying we only 20,000 nr waterfowl hunters here. I think you would stand a better chance than HPC.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

L2h, On Monday Oct 24 at 4:31 pm under 10/23 Forumn editorial you said in response to ALLSUNND you stated I am a landowner too, right around 1000 acres. Maybe you should go back and read what you wrote. I'm sure I'm wrong because I'm a g/o


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

In my opinion it is impossible to define what a "level playing field" is for everyone. I think what we have is about as level as it can be for all parties involved. That is the problem. The "level" is tilting and everyone thinks it is tilting against them. If we could turn back the clock and return to the 50's and 60's it was even more level because the issue was so much more simple. Now the issue is so complex that it is tilted against anyone who does not own or control access to the land. This is not necessarily bad but in fact the reality of the situation. This is what gets some people so upset. They want something that someone else has but because of a multitude of reasons including economics it is not possible for everyone to have what they think is theirs. The only way North Dakota can control hunting issues is through the legislature and even what they can do is limited by what the individual landowners decide when it comes to access. I am not in favor of telling a landowner what he can or cannot do with his land. Only in the most extreme cases involving eminent domain should this be done. It is your right to by a hunting license but a priviledge to hunt on private land. Level playing field? Depends on your definition of level.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Quality hunting to me includes access and not shoulder to shoulder hunting that is the case in some states. I will disagree with you about duck populations. The late 60's and early 70's duck hunting does not even compare to today. It was far better!

Wildlife populations are up Agreed! What is going to happen with the current laws in ND has in place when the next big blizzard takes the Pheasant and deer populations out. The current trend in the ND legislature is to bring in more and more and more hunters any way they can with no provisions in place to counter the flow. The trend is also moving toward More and More and More!

They seem to think that hunting income is going to save ND's Small Towns I hope you do not believe this also. Income from hunting may help some businesses, but the brutal facts are that ND's population is aging and we are doing NOTHING! to try and keep our youth in the state and on the farm. That is what it will take to save small towns!!

Couple the aging population and the amount of shelter income out there and you end up with a situation that is even more dire for the small towns.

You will be fine when the wildlife populations crash either due to weather or habitat loss, we are the ones that will be left holding the bag and the entire G/O industry that harvests the resources day after day after day will not be required to even do anything except pay the license fees and keep killing wildlife on their least land! O/G License fees should be based on harvest/hunter numbers. then at leat the industry would be paying their fair share that could be used for habitat/wildlife preservation/restoration.

You keep saying you guys when HPC gets mentioned. Who is you guys? NDGF has HPC listed as a key component to their strategic planning. I just happen to agree with them.

Bob


----------



## 870 XPRS (Mar 12, 2003)

g/o said:


> L2h, On Monday Oct 24 at 4:31 pm under 10/23 Forumn editorial you said in response to ALLSUNND you stated I am a landowner too, right around 1000 acres. Maybe you should go back and read what you wrote. I'm sure I'm wrong because I'm a g/o


L2h may have said that, but it was Lvn2hunt and not Live2hunt, 2 seperate people.


----------



## Lvn2Hnt (Feb 22, 2005)

870: you're right, we are two different people

g/o: What exactly are you getting at? I am a land owner and I did state that


----------



## Lvn2Hnt (Feb 22, 2005)

Once again, like many other threads on this site, it has taken on an entirely different idea and tone than originally intended. Not saying that is bad, there have been extremely valid information and opinions posted.

But, I once again would like to revert to what I was originally attempting to get at with my post.

First of all, I want to make one thing clear: I am not trying to get G/O's outlawed or disbanded. I believe that the good ones can bring a great service to hunting and sportsmen. I do, however, believe that all should abide by the rules and I would be in favor of some sort of legislation placing a cap on the amount of land they could lease, or maybe the number of licenses allotted. But, this again really has nothing to do with the inten of this particular thread.

My intent was to call to question those landowners operating outside of the law as outfitters. For example, there is a landowner from my home hunting area that does indeed own land. Does indeed farm that land. Does indeed post that land. And does indeed charge hunters, lodge hunters and guide hunters. All without a license and all without claiming this income or paying taxes. Obviously, this is quite ok in the eyes of the law (which I find repulsive.)

But, this same "farmer" or "landowner" is also posting land and guiding on this land that HE DOES NOT FARM. He very well may have a lease for this land, but it is not for agricultural purposes. So, is this illegal?

This is one of the scenarios that was the reasoning behind this thread.

And once again g/o, it may be very difficult to see past your own views, opinions, and preconceived ideas, but I am, believe it or not, at least partially on your side. As I've said before, I'm not entirely against G/O's, I'm just trying to oust those who are operating illegally and unethically - those hurting your own business/industry. I don't think it would be all that inconceivable for you to be a tad more respectful when addressing me (or whom you may think is me). I have yet to personally attack you unprovoked, I would appreciate the same courtesy.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Lvn2Hnt



> My intent was to call to question those landowners operating outside of the law as outfitters. For example, there is a landowner from my home hunting area that does indeed own land. Does indeed farm that land. Does indeed post that land. And does indeed charge hunters, lodge hunters and guide hunters. All without a license and all without claiming this income or paying taxes. Obviously, this is quite ok in the eyes of the law (which I find repulsive.)


There is no law broken here except for not paying taxes. No laws in ND exist that dictate how a landowner may use their property.

Bob


----------



## Lvn2Hnt (Feb 22, 2005)

Bob: yeah, I realize that and I understand that there's little to do to change this. But, what about the posting of land that he does not own or lease for agricultural purposes? Trying to find the law on that......

What I really don't get is that the law doesn't mind if landowners or leasees are charging for hunting w/o a g/o license because they own the land. If this is true, then why should any g/o get a license when they are guiding/outfitting on owned or leased land?


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

Like anything though, G/O's need to be regulated. Especially when they are going to have such a large impact on our sport.

I am not against G/O, but at the same time they have a great deal of leverage as compared to the "common" sportsman. They can spread the cost of their lease over many different clients. I am not anti-business, I ma a business person, but at the same time their needs to be regualtion of influence.

The thing that I would ask is how are these G/O's bettering the sport and the state?

I would just like to hear your response, I would simply like your "positioning statement" because as of now Mr. G/O you ahve only attacked and never defended yourself. I would like to offer you the opportunity to do so openly.

Thank you for your input G/O, I am very interested in your opinion and position on this issue.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

g/o: You are wrong. That was not me who said that. I do not own 1000 acres of land.

Thank you Lvn2Hnt for clearing that up.

This arguement is useless with you g/o because anything we might say is just considered whining to you. You have taken too much of what I said completely out of context and it is you who have brought nothing to the table.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Lvn2Hnt 


> what about the posting of land that he does not own or lease for agricultural purposes? Trying to find the law on that......


It would be impossible to prove with current regulations



> If this is true, then why should any g/o get a license when they are guiding/outfitting on owned or leased land?


*From NDCC*


> *An individual may not act as a guide or outfitter or advertise or otherwise represent to the public as a guide or outfitter without first securing a license in accordance with this chapter and the rules of the director. *


 They must also meet these qualification requirements

20.1-03-37. Guides and outfitters license qualifications.
1. An individual who is eighteen years of age or more may apply for a guide or outfitter
license.
2. An applicant for a hunting guide license and an outfitter acting as a guide shall
provide the director proof that the individual is certified in adult cardiopulmonary
resuscitation or its equivalent and in standard or first aid or its equivalent.
3. An applicant for a hunting outfitter or fishing outfitter license shall provide to the
director proof that the individual and the individual's business operation are covered
by general liability insurance against loss or expense due to accident or injury from
Page No. 16
outfitting services, at a minimum of one hundred thousand dollars per individual and
three hundred thousand dollars per accident.
4. An individual must hold a hunting guide license for two years to be eligible to apply
for a hunting outfitter license unless that individual provides proof to the department
that the individual has been exempt under subsection 4 of section 20.1-03-36.1 and
has been conducting outfitter or guide service as an exempt individual for at least
two years.
5. The director may not issue a license to an individual who has been convicted of a
state or federal criminal game or fish violation in the last three years or whose
license to hunt or fish is under suspension or revocation. As used in this chapter,
"conviction" means a finding of guilt, a guilty plea, a plea of no contest, a plea of nolo
contendere, a judgment of conviction even though the court suspended execution of
a sentence in accordance with subsection 3 of section 12.1-32-02, or a deferred
imposition of sentence in accordance with subsection 4 of section 12.1-32-02 or an
equivalent statute. The term does not include a finding of guilt which is reversed on
appeal.
6. If an application is for a business association, the applicant must be an agent of the
association to be held personally responsible for the conduct of the licensed
outfitter's operations, in addition to the association, and the applicant must be
actively and regularly employed in and responsible for the management,
supervision, and operation of the outfitting business. The department may only
issue an outfitter license to a business applicant if the applicant is qualified to
conduct the business of outfitting. A corporation or association may qualify for an
outfitter license if a majority of stock is owned by licensed outfitters in good standing
or landowners who own agricultural land used for the outfitting business, or if a
limited liability company, the majority membership interest is owned by licensed
outfitters in good standing or by landowners who own agricultural land used for the
outfitting business. If a business entity owns, is a leaseholder in land, or provides
compensation for the use of land, and directly or indirectly receives remuneration
from hunting on that land, the business entity must be licensed under this title unless
exempt under subsection 4 of section 20.1-03-36.1. A business entity may not
conduct business operations through a subsidiary, contractor, or an agent that would
permit the business entity to avoid this chapter. This section does not authorize any
act or transaction prohibited by any other law of this state.
7. An applicant for a hunting guide or hunting outfitter license must have legally hunted
in this state for part of each of any three years in a manner directly contributing to
the individual's experience and competency as a guide. The department may waive
this requirement if the applicant proves that the applicant has legally hunted for parts
of at least three years in other states and an outfitter employing that individual would
suffer an undue hardship without that individual.


----------



## Lvn2Hnt (Feb 22, 2005)

northdakotakid said:


> The thing that I would ask is how are these G/O's bettering the sport and the state?


NDKid, I think you were asking me, right?

Since I do not have any official figures on what economic stimulation or wildlife management benefits G/O's bring, I will be speaking of only my personal opinion. But, just as a clarifying statement, I do believe all G/O's that operate illegally or unethically should be shut down indefinitely.

I think that good, ethical and legal G/O's can and do have benefits. For one, they do bring people together with game and opportunities that those people may not otherwise get to experience. I eventaully plan to get out of the state and hunt other wildlife not native to ND, I will more than likely enlist the help of a reputable G/O to make my experience more successful. I don't have a clue how to hunt certain things in certain states/countries and I know I would need the help.

A good, ethical and legal G/O provides guidance for those NRs that may not understand our state, laws, expectations, etc. In other words, they could be the preventative factor of a NR getting into serious trouble.

A good, ethical and legal G/O could help be the eyes and ears for the G&F and COs because they are out there all day every day. A good, ethical and legal G/O could provide information on animal concentration numbers, movement patterns, or even illegal activity going on in their area.

Those are just a few ways I feel that G/O's can be beneficial. I know I'll probably get attacked for those views, but just remember, I'm only standing up for those G/Os that operate respectfully (which I think there are few of in ND). As for those who are shady, rot in hell.


----------



## Lvn2Hnt (Feb 22, 2005)

Bob, I've read all these laws and almost understand them, but what I don't get is how the department/law is making the distinction between who needs to have a license and who doesn't.

In an earlier post you said:


> It is because they operate on land they own and supposedly do not lease land for recreational purposes, only agriculture that is then used at times for recreational purposes........? I gets complex.


So where is the line of distinction drawn? What the conflicting langauge in the law is saying is that anyone who owns or leases land for anything other than recreation can be an outfitter and not be licensed.

That brings me back to my scenario.... this guys is leasing land for the sole purpose to hunt on because he does not farm the land, should then not be required to have a outfitting license.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Lvn2Hnt

This is the distinction



> advertise or otherwise represent to the public as a guide or outfitter without first securing a license in





> this guys is leasing land for the sole purpose to hunt on because he does not farm the land, should then not be required to have a outfitting license.


If he is not advertising or otherwise representing himself to the public as a guide, he does not need a license.

There are many uses for land that will let them fall under agriculture, just because the land is not tilled does not mean it is not used for Ag purposes.

Receiving CRP payments is a use considered to be agricultural related.

Like I said it gets complex.

Bob


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

L2h, I would like to apologize, I made a mistake sorry you guys names are to close for an old man such as myself to distinguish. Again accept my apology, I was just a little confused. Thank you g/o


----------



## Lvn2Hnt (Feb 22, 2005)

Bob,

He is advertising or otherwise representing his services to the public, how else would he keep brining in new clients each year from different states?

This is exhausting....sorry to keep bugging you Bob.


----------



## Lvn2Hnt (Feb 22, 2005)

g/o, apology accepted and appreciated. :beer:


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

my question is aimed at G/O. I just want his thoughts.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Lvn2Hnt

Is the advertising word of mouth or print? If he is advertising in print media then he may very well be in violation. Have you made any report to authorities?

Yes it is exhausting to figure out the true meaning of some of these laws. there is a great deal of gray area in the wildlife section of the NDCC

Bob


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

thank you g/o. I accept your apology.


----------



## Lvn2Hnt (Feb 22, 2005)

Bob, a year or so ago I did see print advertisement, but haven't recently. I have not reported him yet because I want to make sure I have all my ducks in a row before throwing out accusations.

I'm guessing that word of mouth advertisment would not be enough to prove a violation? How else would someone "represent" their services to the public?


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

g/o: I want to pose a question to you and hopefully you will give me an honest answer.

Let's say we take off some restrictions on g/o's like you would want. No limitations on the NR's and we reduce licenses to what they were before.

What would small town ND look like in 20 years? Do you think they would still prosper?

Under that scenerio, we would have an incredible supply of g/o's leasing the land up. In fact, other than a few spots here or there, virtually everything would be leased. That means locals and the ones that come out from larger cities probably would not exist, or would exist in extremely low numbers (as the trends indicate: access goes down, R hunters go down).

NDSU did the study and Resident sportmen spent 4x more than NR's. Under that research, wouldn't we want to increase the number of Residents hunting instead of the number of NR's hunting? Because for every 1 R, you would need 4 NR's. That means these NR sportsmen would take 24 ducks/12 pheasants per day off the land versus 6 ducks/3 pheasants off the land.

I also believe under this scenerio there is no incentive for youth to stay in ND. There is also no reason for many of us to stay in ND. There would be more incentive to leave the state to make more money. Thus creating more hardships for small towns.

I just can't see NR's making up for that loss. Sure NR's have a quick economic impact, but the longterm loss of people, jobs, small towns would dry up, schools would close.

I just can't see a long term benefit to outfitting and guiding for ND.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Live, I had to go back and check to make sure you are the one I started with today. You asked me a question but then you answered it your way. So it makes things alittle tough to answer. Currently there are no restriction on outfitters I disagree with in fact a few more would not hurt. 
There are no restrictions on residents except the days hunted no license caps. As Bob said and I have said before hunting will not save small town ND. Will small towns die of course and some will prosper but none will prosper or die because of hunting. Hunting is a shot in the arm for many small towns across this state. It makes up for over 40% of the annual income in many of the resturants,motels in these areas. I was just in town to eat the resturant was full,come to this same resturant come January and there will be probably 4 people in there. No hunting will not save a small town but it helps keep them going. As far the NDSU study goes there is another one that shows NR out spending residents during hunting season. The study you refer to is based on year round resident spending. Of course you spend more in a year than a non resident. Sometime learn about how important new money is to a local economy. I agree with you there is no incentive for young people to stay here. Unless you are going to be an outfitter or be an outdoor writer you will never make a living hunting. To make money you need to go to where the people are unfortunatley thats not ND. I run a hunting buisness to make money, which I spend in my local community. Now I don't expect to get many endorsements from this site. If I did not do this I would not live in ND I would be a non resident. My land would still be posted and either it would be leased or I would hunt it myself. Cuss me all you want but most in my community approve of what I do and are glad I'm here. I owed this one so I'm outta here I need a break. Thanks and sorry again for the slip up.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

g/o: I appreciate the feedback and honest reply. I think it is important to learn about what it looks like from the other side of the fence.

I need a break too.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

G/O, I know that you said you need a break, but I am wondering if you can get me the info or where that survey/study that says that NR outspend Residents. I would love to look at that one.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

dj,
Maybe this what he is referring too:
___________________________________________________________
Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2004 10:59 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The two page summary can be found here:

Page 1:

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

Page 2:

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/media/Overview2_NDGF.pdf


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

There you go Dick throwin' facts into the discussion messin' up everything!!! :lol: :lol: :beer:


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

I have those reports as well and when you look at the numbers it tells a possible tale.

Average Season Expenditures In ND

Per Resident/Nonresident

NR spent more on Antelope Archery by a grand total of $72.04 total

NR spent more on Deer Archery by a grand total of $ 535.53

NR spent more on Deer Firearm by a grand total of $ 60.60

On small game (upland and waterfowl) Residents out spent Nonresidents by$763.43

Anyone care to speculate on why NR out spend R for big game?

Later
Bob


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

[quote/]Anyone care to speculate on why NR out spend R for big game?[/quote]

Not just anyone, we want g/o's version.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

OK, I will take a stab at this one Bob..........Hmmmmmm.........could it be that they use g/o's for their hunting, er....shooting!!


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Or it could also be that the NR blow money just like we do on vacation. or all of the above. The fixed vs. variable expenses are quite different but when you take look at the total number of R vs. NR hunters it is still a big difference between R and NR. For archery Antelope the difference is $190,621.22 and for Deer Archery $1,931,611.66 all on the residents side, so to make up for this and have the NR out spend us using these numbers you would need to issue 320.47 more NR antelope archery tags, and 1,955.78 more NR deer archery tags. and yet we still have tags for both available (or we did as of a couple of weeks ago) for this year. For firearm the difference is $20 Million plus for deer alone. None of the above numbers include fixed expenses we live here they do not so it is a given that we spend more.

It looks like this year is going to be historical in the fact that NR waterfowl hunters look as though they will out number R for the first time in history of hunting in ND. We were ahead of last year by 900+ licenses a couple of weeks ago without the migration in full swing. Numbers from this season will be interesting to look at in a couple of years.

DO NOT TAKE THIS POST AS BEING ANTI NR! IT IS NOT! all it is is real numbers crunched from the 2001-02 hunting season.

Bob


----------



## curty (Sep 18, 2003)

I think res and non res $$ help the state of economy in different ways. In my area of business non res spent more here (during hunting season for that time period) Its a big boost to our small town economy. It will not sustain us all year, but is a big boost for a small town to be packed for two months.

Its would seem obvious though that res spend more because we live here and spent year around.

During the off season so to speak, the res of the state, family, friends, travelers, ect. sustain us more. It depents on who's business your talking about when it comes to who spents the most and what time of the year, also what type of business, and location.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

I agree Curt

Look everyone

All I was trying to point out is the fact that often times residents are taken for granted in some of these conversations because of the influx of so called new money.

The last thing I would ever want is to have our small towns die. We are on a hunting site so we talk about hunting related issues, and all along those calling for more and more NR hunters do not seem to look at the fact that with the laws we have now they can come, there is no limit on NR upland wingshooting licenses. For waterfowl the limit is 14 days and the option of no zones, with no limit to those that wish to Participate. For deer there is in excess of 7000 tags still available to residents and nonresidents. Where are the NR people that some say we are restricting with these laws? and a few from this site want to chastise because a restriction on the PLOTS land for the first week of the season, when in reality it is just a weekend.

Ask yourself this question would you be better off with more resident and nonresident hunters combined buying your services in our small towns?

Yet the legislature always looks for the quick fix by finding more ways to increase NR dollars in the state (which apparently isn't working) instead of having the balls to look at the real problem of low wages and out-migration.

Obviously hunting is not as important as money to some of our exported young people as it was to my generation.

We need to find a way to keep our young people in ND. We also need to find a way to manage hunter numbers based on available resources. Like I said previously the licenses are available right now, why are they not selling like hot cakes?

I know someone will bring up the old "you guys are mean to NR" or "You guys want it all to yourself" or "you guys create an unfriendly environment for nr" or "you guys are all a bunch of me firsters" or "it is all because of Fargo hunters"and I will respond with Bull Poop! these are just a bunch of scapegoat excuses that can be thrown out to cover for the lack of willingness to force YOUR legislators to look at the real problems!! and find workable solutions!

I am willing to wager that part of the reason NR are not knocking down the door is word of mouth about land access and at the present time low waterfowl numbers in some of the so called Prime areas. Why do we have low waterfowl numbers now? because of the weather, a late migration and Hunter Pressure! Why is land access getting less every year? you tell me, i would really like to hear what you think. It ain't rocket science!! it is about groups working together to achieve a common goal! Until we get to the point of organization and common goals for all involved. it is just going to be more of the same.

sorry about the rant

I am now getting off my soap box!!

:beer:

Bob

PS sorry about the thread hijack


----------



## fishless (Aug 2, 2005)

Bob Kellum


> Obviously hunting is not as important as money to some of our exported young people as it was to my generation.


 I Think your post is correct but I take exception to this I am 36 been gone 6 yrs ( from ND) and other then my family hunting is #1. That being said we (my family and I ) wish to return to ND but circumstances at this time dont allow it. Circumstances known as wages, I know when the time comes I will have to take a pay cut to come back but there is a differance between making a living and getting buy. Please dont think ND youth have given in to higher wages over (family and hunting) we have done what we were taught to do buy are parents WORK HARD and take care of our family's.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Fishless

I ment no malice toward anyone that is in that situation. If I could make as much back home as I do in Fargo I would be there.

Sorry you were offended it is, however, the reality of the situation.

Bob


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

This is one of those "hay-maker" posts where virtually all of the sub-issues that have surrounded the ND hunting debates have or will get mentioned (again). I don't have much new to add either, but would like to toss out a few things to remember when these subjects come up:

1. If memory serves, NR bird hunter average daily expenditures exceed those of the R's, but R's hunt more days throughout the season, and that in-part contributes to the higher season expenditures. For example, in '04, the average R upland hunter was afield 6.05 days as compared to 4.16 days for the average NR. Personally, I've spent about twice the number of days in the field (and in rural ND businesses/motels) in my R years than I did in my NR years.

2. Also, R's do most of their hunting-related expenditures right here in ND: Guns, ammo, dekes, clothes, ammo, groceries, dog-related items (probably significantly more $ annually than ammo), etc.

3. We've lost more than _*10,000*_, or *25%*, of R waterfowlers in just the last 5 years. Last year we were down almost 5,000 R uplanders compared to the previous year. Many who see the hunter trend lines say it's okay to to loose R's, because we're getting NR's in their place and they spend more $ per day. Well, that may be true on a per day basis, but that's similar logic to justifying that last purchase with "it [that last thing I didn't really need] was 30% off - think of all the money I just saved." When you trade an R for an NR (or even several), it's a net sum loss, economically, for the State throughout the season and more substantially throughout the year. Another example, last year was the first year in the last many that Hettinger County was not the #1 county for R pheasant harvest. Since '02, it dropped from 1st to 3rd and from 12.6 to 6.5% (48% decline) of the R harvest. In that same time period, it remained the #1 NR harvest county, dropping only from 22.3 to 19.7% (17% decline) of total NR harvest. Bird numbers have been lower in the SW than many past years and the pheasant range has expanded in those years, but lockout can't be discounted. Boot an R out of an area in October, and he/she probably won't be back in November or December either, when the hotels and restaurants are void of the flush NR's. If it were me, I'd rather make $X/day for 120 days than $X+5 for 45 days and $X-10 for 75 days - that's what reasonable restrictions that would keep hunting great for all and ward off the exclusivity trends would do for the majority of those that make a buck off ND hunting.

4. "New money" and the sausage tube analogy - you can only put so much in a suasage tube - after that it leaks out the other end. Again, we've lost 1/4th of our R waterfowlers in 5 years. And, more and more ND waterfowlers are looking for sanity in Canada every year. Why are those things happening - in the days of promoted mythical-like ND waterfowling? And don't tell me it's the urbanization and out-migration of ND, because we had an upward trend of R waterfowlers prior to 2000 and the outmigration/urbanization trends started decades before that. New money is great, but is not when it's pushing old money out the other end of the tube.

5. This one is for g/o. 20,000 NR waterfowl hunters in any particular year means nothing except as it relates to any particular year. For some years, that would grossly cheat tourism (HPC would have produced more than 20k in all years 1995-2003, except one). Others, it would present unreasonable pressure. That was the beauty and logic of HPC (or some other yet-to-be conceived dynamic system): match total hunters to anticipated hunting opportunities, give preference to R hunters and make available _*all reasonable excess *_for NR's (and R's who profit from hunting). Really - nothing up the sleeve - that was the rationale. Those who fought against HPC were either selfish (o/g's who know that pressure/competition only makes them a more-attractive alternative) or were unable/unwilling to look past the short-term windfall's of the past couple years (before exclusivity began to impact things) towards the day when exclusivity will bring the chicken home to roost right smack dab in the middle of Main Street (general tourism). Mott is the case study, but it won't be the last community to feel the boomerang.


----------



## fishless (Aug 2, 2005)

No offense taken its just that I have run into a few other displaced people from ND and they feel the same way I do (everyone wants to come home) but its always the same concern lack of good jobs. But I know that there will eventually be an oppurtunity for us to return home. And to anyone else reading this thinking of a job out of state think again I know the grass isnt greener on the other side.


----------



## Lvn2Hnt (Feb 22, 2005)

Bob, there isn't a word or emoticons strong enough to congratulate your post.

I am in complete agreement with what you have said.

I would like to add, I am sick and tired of people bi&ching about the low wages in this state and that if it weren't for that they'd live here. So, we may be behind the curve in some areas, but

_*MONEY IS NOT EVERYTHING*_

I am quite disappointed in those refugees of our state that claim they were forced out of the state by low wages and must suffer a terrible pay cut to come back. Frankly, if that's the way you feel, than the lifers here don't want you back. There's a difference between leaving to get experience, join the army, further education, etc and a person that leaves just to find money. Life is short when all you do is chase the green.

You get far more from this state than just green!! Some of the best professionals in this state are very competitive in terms of wage and annual earnings than most from other states within their same profession.

If you want to make the big bucks and still stay in ND, then 
1)bust you a$$ to get the job that will get you that money
2)get off you a$$ and get involved with your law makers and opinion leaders to make some changes in the future of the state
3)be prepared to suffer the consequences that WILL come along with the change in our economy - whatever it may be
4)realize that there are definitely fringe benefits of being a ND res

If you are not prepared or willing to take part in any of those options, then you don't belong in a state with a heritage of busting our butts and being tough.

Let it be known that I am not singling anyone out with my views in this post. Truth be told I've been tempted to leave to find a better paying job. But, that was before I realized what I have here and what I can do here. I am not satisfied with being one of those that'll stand on the sidelines, if you're truly a North Dakotan, you shouldn't be either.

But please, give a second thought to what it truly is that makes you leave this state or prevents you from moving here/back here. If you look hard enough, I think you'll find a different answer than just money.

Off my soap box (for a bit) now

And I have to appologize to myself now for thread-jacking


----------



## fishless (Aug 2, 2005)

L2h youre right money isnt everything, also hindsight is always 20/20 and not everyone makes good carreer decisions. I think if you read my previous post I know the grass aint greener on the other side. Oh and by the way I dont care if you want any ND refugees back or not Im coming back anyway


----------



## Lvn2Hnt (Feb 22, 2005)

fishless> you obviously didn't read my post close enough if you think that it was personal attack to you. I'm speaking out of frustration of many things, none of which have to do with you. I did read the post that said you had found out the grass isn't greener on the other side. I just hope that more figure that out before getting in too deep. I commend you on being able to see that.

That's one great things about ND, we WILL ALWAYS welcome anyone. My point isn't about those of us who make less than perfect career decisions or mistakes. I'm talking to those people who just hang up the hat when it comes to wages and income in ND, the ones that never try and the ones that just don't give it a shot. I'm frustrated with those who just won't do anything about it.

I'll be the first to support anyone that will pursue a career elsewhere, both of my siblings have done it. ND just ain't cut out for everybody and more power to those who stike their own stake in the world. But, I beg those that really do want to stay in ND to try their dangdest to help an unfavorable situation out. Give it a fair shot, give it your all.

If it still doesn't work out and you just can't do it, then hell, get out, make some money, but stay true to your roots and fight for us on the other side.

fishless, please don't think I'm discrediting you or anyone else in a similar situation, I'm not. I'm just begging everyone to not give up, not give in. And please don't think that we have to sacrifice freelance hunting and get bought out just because our jobs may not be as abundant or well paying as others.

Sorry if I have offend you or anyone else, that is not my intent.


----------



## fishless (Aug 2, 2005)

L2h no offense taken :beer:


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Fishless

One of the things that kept my generation here was and is hunting and ND outdoors. We did not have the ability that our youth do today to find out what wages and job opportunities are world wide with the click of a mouse.

Dan as always Great post!!

L2H :thumb: Keep hammering!!

Bob


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

Excellent posts Bob, Dan, and L2H.

I am 31 finishing a Master's degree and have credits earned towards my Ph.D. The only and I mean ONLY reason I am in this state is because of the hunting.

Even after I complete my Ph.D, I won't make the money I could outside of this state. It doesn't matter to me as long as I can hunt and as long as I can show my children to hunt.

I am also an extremely dedicated waterskier. I could only dream of the day that I could do that year round, but I know that won't happen as long as I can hunt here.

Supporting ND and the economy is always first and foremost. Whether that be purchasing Dakota Maid pancake mix, our pasta, eggs from the 4-H'er down the road, or buying a vehicle from a local business.

Hunting is my life here in ND.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Good post Dan.

I am at the point in my life where it looks like I will be retireing from teaching after this school year.32 years is long enough.I have a decision to make.My kids moved to Minn. for better wages.My wife wants to be closer to them.I told her it comes down to this decision.....

Stay in ND for the hunting or move to Minn. for the fishing.

We agreed to stay on this side of the Red River. 

At some point in the future,if commercialization continues,I might have to rethink that decision.At least lakes are open to the public.


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

Well here is a case study for you...

26 year old male
finished graduate school 2 years ago
getting married this June after fiance finishes graduate school this May
No kids

What do you think the #2 reason that this person will stay around ND 
HUNTING & FISHING !!

I ask you this, if North Dakota has such a hard time retaining its educated and successful people.... and the #2 reason they stay in North Dakota anyways is to hunt and fish..... why would we not use that resource to attract and retain this population....and other young people who want to be successful and also enjoy North Dakota's resources?

Could you imagine the impact a Resident favored hunting and fishing program would have on creating industry and jobs?

I think that in the long run that it would allow for an enormous long term growth and increase in the quality of living here in North Dakota.

If you look at the technology available in the next few years it is amazing what an increase in retention and atraction of these young people would do. They have their entire careers of tax paying and spending ahead of them.

Technology is advancing so fast also, a thing called network meshing and WIMAX(which was tested during KAtrina) will provide interent access from nearly every point in North Dakota at 10-20 times faster than any connection available now. So this could repopulate the smaller towns in North Dakota rather than having them at the mercy of Mother NAture and sporting dollars.

I know this seems like a dream, but with todays advances in technology and people becoming more and mroe fed up with the urban sprawls and crime in larger cities it is closer than a person could imagine.

I know that the G/O's are going to attack me for this, but it is a far more sustainable resource than closing access to sportsman by allowing leases to consume access. Rather incentivizing people both young and old to become North Dakota citizens and retain these lands and our heritage as sportsmen will ensure the legacy of the small communties that will no doubt die under the current direction. I mean this, it scares me to know that my children, who ahve yet to be born, will never know what a small rural community has to offer.

A very real outcome never-the-less. We know that our state possess resources that very few states have to offer and why would we be foolish and not use those resources to produce a sustainable future for all of our people...not just the few that will control the access to it.

Your thoughts please.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

I've been a ND imigrant/emigrant/prodigal son, all in the span of about 10 years. Fishless, you bite the bullet and come back when you can.

I've always said, there are many good reasons to live elsewhere, and a few great reasons to live here. Anyone who's wrestled with the residency decision knows what I mean. It would be an absolute shame if the ND policy makers allowed one of the great reasons to slip away.

The thousands of us who put hunting in the top 2-3 reasons for staying/coming/coming back to ND are truly the "undercounted" when it comes to the real economic development/impact of hunting to the ND economy. This is not purely a "heritage" issue - we just haven't done a very good job convincing the policy makers that preserving quality hunting for residents is also the right thing to do from a State economy standpoint.


----------

