# My Perspective



## David S Proffitt (Sep 13, 2002)

I wanted to take a moment and share a perspective that I am confident will offend some on this board. First let me tell you about me. I am a nonresident hunter that has enjoyed North Dakota hunting for the past several years. I come up and stay three weeks. Hunt ducks the first week and then Pheasants and Sharptails the next two. I am there with my father and brother and some years a friend or two. We stay at a motel, eat at the restaurant and visit the connivance stores in the small towns in the Western third of the state. I respect the land I hunt as well as the people I meet. I am greeted enthusiastically by those who own the establishments I visit. I, to date, have hunted land that is public access.

Many of the store owners discussed with me their view of the stupidity of capping or limited nonresident hunters. A restaurant owner in Dickinson told me that this was the most profitable time of the year for him because of the out of state hunters. A radio station claimed every hotel/motel room in the city was filled for the pheasant opener. My credit card revealed that I spent a little over $1,900.00 on my trip this year.

Resident North Dakota sportsman are allowing themselves to be perceived as egocentric individuals only concerned with their own experience at the COST of others. This is not the impression I would hope you intend to leave. A quick review of the posting here would lead most to believe that the political concerns of some louder individuals on this page is (1) reduce competition for my hunting opportunities, (2) keep my costs low, (3) reduce economic opportunities for others, (4) me, me, me.

I have said it before that I believe a more effective strategy to improve everyone's outcomes is to partner with the broader interest. I strongly believe that the only way to maintain great hunting for EVERYONE is to make great hunting EVERYONE'S interest. You do this not by alienating others and putting your priorities and values ahead of others, but by building a coalition of common interests.

The continuation of great hunting in North Dakota is dependent on;
·	Great Habitat

Great habitat will be available as long as it is in the interest of the farmer/ranch to maintain it. Financially we (resident and nonresident) as sportsman need to be prepared to contribute to the cost of maintaining wetlands, creating shelter and food plots, and managing with a mind on wildlife production. Some here are quick to point out that the state owns the wildlife. That may be true but the farmer/rancher carries the bulk of the responsibility for raising that wildlife. 
·	Public Access
Publicly funded access programs need to be expanded. A culture of being thankful and appreciative of that access needs to be nurtured by sportsman and also local chamber of commerce members. 
·	Management
Population management based on sound research is needed to adjust season lengths, limits, and harvest techniques. By maximizing wildlife revenues through license fees and other taxes, great habitat can be sustained and expanded. Great habitat increases wildlife populations. Increased populations can sustain greater harvest.

What can sportsman do?
·	Recognize that either all interests win or lose together on these issues.
·	Support initiatives that increase (not limit) sportsman recreational days. Beyong the obvious interst of the sportsman it is the interest of the businessman and will lead to increase wildlife revenues.
·	Be willing to financially support through higher license costs (both resident and nonresident) funding wildlife programs.
·	Acknowledge that the farmer/rancher should not be expected to provide use of their property for your recreation without compensation. Persons who golf don't expect it to be free. We as sportsman should value our heritage to the point we will financially support it. 
·	Realize that those who feed their family by operating a convenience store, gas station, restaurant, sporting goods store, or hotel benefit from nonresident hunters.

Specifically I would like to see the following type of initiatives pursued as opposed to what appears to be a fear based strategy that is aimed at limiting the number of others and hoping everything else will stay the same approach.
§	Increase the number of waterfowl management zones (to say 12 or so) and require state duck stamps for each zone which are valid for one week and no more than one stamp valid at anyone time. This may spread out the pressure and increase revenues). If the biologists believe capping each zone each week is needed then I would support that idea.
§	Institute a "Hunting Guide Tax" on person's utilizing this option. Moneys should be used to secure public access and address leasing by outfitters.
§	Person's utilizing the services of a guide should not be allowed to utilize public access lands.
§	Establish a resident goose season stamp for the early season.
§	Institute Upland Game Stamp valid for 5 day periods. Allow multiple purchases if desired.
§	Increase (double) resident and nonresident license fees.
§	Offer financial incentives ($1 to $2 an acre) to all persons entering into CRP contracts to sign on a public access lease for the length of the contract.

I realize that these ideas would significantly increase the license cost to average hunters. However, I purchase decoys, guns, shells, cloths, dogs, dog food, etc., because of how much I value the experience of hunting. As a nonresident going from $100.00 licensing costs to say $300.00 is not going to deter me and I suspect it will not deter many others. The last statement is especially true if the hunting and access becomes even better as I think it will. The approach I offer here serves the landowners needs, the business owners needs, the sportsman's needs, and the resources needs.

&#8230;. Just my thoughts &#8230;


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

WHoopie! You're 'great' plan is going to open up another couple hundred thousand acres to public hunting. Sweet! We get a couple hundred thousand more acres of public land that is already overcrowded and we get to lose access to the millions of acres of private lands we once were allowed to hunt because they were gobbled up by NR's who either bought them and posted them, leased them and posted them or paid to use a guide who either bought or leased them and then posted them.

I hate to burst your bubble but Hoeven has already pledged to expand the PLOTS programs anyway. Anymore great ideas?

"Persons who golf don't expect it to be free."

I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. I can't believe you just compared hunting to golf...I thought your intention was for us to take you seriously??? :roll:


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

I can't disagree with much you wrote

I would just add that most of the towns & businesses you worry about have always had hunters in them before 30,000 NR's started coming. Alot were Residents that now won't or don't want to compete & put up with all the hassles this has created.

Freelance Residents have always spent the vast majority of the $$$ in these towns. That has been forgotten or many have been mislead to believe it is predominately NR's that fill their cafes - Bars - Motels - Stores & that just ain't so. (maybe now)??? but not that many years ago not the case. These towns can only accomodates so many at once - Or sustain quality hunting for so many in a season. (which is 3 or 4 of the 1st weeks for NR's)

I agree fees have to rise & the moneys be used to improve access - I'm not positive that residents should have to pay the exact same amounts as Non Residents - But I'm willing to pay alot more.

I think & hope most of what you just posted will happen - & most of what you have posted has been mentioned in bits & pieces here for somtime now. :roll: (Patiences Fetch Patiences) I think it's a stigma & false notion that most here are me me me - any more than most NR's are Me me me in their concerns & desires. I agree we have to find ways to compensate landowners - so they are not tempted to sell out to the commercial interests - cause that will only make things worse for all Freelance Hunters.

Plus the vast majority want to " Freelance" not use guides & outfitters.

GEEZ - now I'm starting to talk to myself :roll: :eyeroll:


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Dennis,

It's not offensive because it's different, but because it lacks internal consistency, is blatantly unfair to res. sportsmens, and is self serving while pretending not to be.

Please think about what you write:
The hotels are full, but you think more NR's should come in.
Farmers are responsible for all habitat and game production, but you hunt public land.
Capacity is a fixed resource, and there are already two or more groups for every active field, but you want more folks to come in.
You think caps are "stupid" but later you support them.

(Frankly, the third person rhetorical technique you use makes me sick.)
YOU perceive us as egocentric individuals - and you are sadly mistaken.
YOU would like to cast it is reducing economic opportunities, whereas the truth is limiting the explosion and refusing to sell everything of value in the state.
YOU think it's "me, me , me" - right back at you.
Everyone's interest? - YOU mean YOUR interest. 
Common interest means YOUR interest.

Otherwise, all your proposals are old news, or self serving.

M.


----------



## NDJ (Jun 11, 2002)

I'm thinking the "cap" may go away...this will be an interesting battle, & I believe the resident sportsman has been underestimated, and the hotel/hospitailty groups are really posturing now as they believe the cap has really hurt business.

This is what I would like to see....all NR licenses must be bought at G&F, phone or internet....The G&F finally has it all set up to cross reference...this will end abuses & there has been plenty of abuse!!!!

Seperate the upland and waterfowl...I believe the cap was reached prematurely by people who had no intention to hunt ducks...but for $10 more they got the waterfowl anyway.

keep a zone system in place.


----------



## Miller (Mar 2, 2002)

A few points I'd like to make about your opinion.

"Offer financial incentives ($1 to $2 an acre) to all persons entering into CRP contracts to sign on a public access lease for the length of the contract."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this would fly because it is federal money and not the state's. This conflict won't work, I've heard it's been brought up and been shot down before. But if something ever passed that would grant extra subsidies for opening the hunting, I'd probably be for it. But we're talking reality.

"As a nonresident going from $100.00 licensing costs to say $300.00 is not going to deter me and I suspect it will not deter many others."

That would deter probably half of the NR's in my mind. That's just too much. Don't forget what ND resident's make for income too, it's second to last in the nation.

"Realize that those who feed their family by operating a convenience store, gas station, restaurant, sporting goods store, or hotel benefit from nonresident hunters."

Who do you think were keeping these businesses alive before you came here? It was the locals and the resident sportspersons. We'd still go to some of these communities if they weren't already booked a year in advance by others. If you want to look at my credit card bills and what I spend in small communities, feel free. It's a lot more than $1,900.

When the state turns all commercial, you'll be able to afford to hunt here, but a lot of residents won't. So then many will be forced to move out of state to make a higher wage so they can afford to come back and hunt. Don't forget that residents live here 365/year and support the state all year long, not just a couple weeks. And stripping one of the most valuable commodities (hunting) available for residents will force even more residents out of the state. The state needs to grow in taxpayers, not decline.

Sure you make some good points, but those involved already know what's going to be feasible and what's not. The state needs to start simple to get the commercialization here under control. That's why the Hunter Pressure Concept is such a good one. We didn't make this up, the Game & Fish did and they're the experts on the subject. In future years, than we can look into the possibility of zones and other side issues.

I'm sorry, I'm not as rich as you and can't afford trips like yours in my own state.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Independent of caps & zones (whether they are implemmented or not) I would suggest that ND do two additional things:

Split the two licenses (upland and waterfowl) and charge $60 to $75 each. Still cheaper than SD.

Move the waterfowl licenses to two 5 day seasons or 10 days total. This will deter (slightly) the hardcore duck hunters. Even if only 1 in 4 NRs hunt more than 10 days, by reducing their number of days - NR hunter pressure is reduced. It is likely these "hardcore" guys that hunt every day are placing more pressure on the resource than the average NR that simply hunts a few days and returns home.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Prairie Hunter is trigger happy or at least heavy on the submit button.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Trigger happy again.


----------



## David S Proffitt (Sep 13, 2002)

Well, I don't think what I wrote is inconsistent. Yes, it is self serving as it is expressing my views of what will lead to sustained good hunting. Although it could of been better presented (as I reread it), the premise that we need to address the interests of the many to stabilize the situation I feel is very accurate. As for the freshness of the ideas I will accept they are old news but I don't see them getting support.

Matt, I realize that resident hunters had greater access in the past. I just don't believe that by capping nonresident hunters you are going to revert to 1977 status. If the landowners becom sufficiently angered at attempts to reduce their capacity to earn a living so the residents can hunt with less cost and hassel, they may reduce access no matter what. Hasn't some of that been experienced already? I would add to that if it becomes financially to the benefit of the farmer to drain wetlands and farm fence row to fence row access will not matter too much anyway.

I would like to state that my party and I had a terrific hunt this year. As I said I was in the Western third of the state. Dickinson to Northwest of Minot. We saw hunters but I never felt it was crowded. I hunted PLOTS, State lands and land the owner allowed public access.

Again I will admit to ignorance to what the resident hunter contribution to the Watford City economy was years ago. I suspect this year nonresident hunters added much.

Sorry that MRN got sick from this post.

In the words of John Hancock, "No idea is so dangerous it can't be discussed". - But I guess and idea can make MRN sick.

P.S. I don't play golf but was trying to point out that financial incentive will determine the long term land use patterns that are the greatest factor in wildlife management and that we as sportsman should be prepared to pay for it.

P.S.S. - MRN - Why don't you at least fork over the membership money to keep this site active?


----------



## guppy (Mar 8, 2002)

All this talk about caps and places to hunt is ok. But the real issue is the quality. If we (residents hunters) do not get together and slow down the Non resident hunters (Cap) and choke off the guide/outfitter who leases a boat load of land. Nobody will have a quality hunt.

Without a quality place to hunt how many of you NR will leave your home areas and come here to hunt?

Dean


----------



## David S Proffitt (Sep 13, 2002)

I think NDJ, Miller, and Prairrie hunter all make excellent points and have some good ideas.

Sorry to disappoint you but I am not rich, but do have an understanding wife and a good job. I do think we need to stick together, increase revenue available to secure quality land.

Just my thoughts.

And as a guest of the state I can't express how much I love your country, and I do hope to be a resident some day!


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

good point guppy, and i don't think that many NR's and legislators know how many people live in ND just for the quality hunting. If ND turns into a louisiana or texas then why would people like us want to live here. it seems like they should care a little more about people's money that is payed into the economy 365 days a year rather than a temporary influx in income from NRs when the duck numbers are high. i know if hunting goes down the drain here, it will make me consider moving out of state. i wonder what the legislators against caps think of that when they always talk about the great ND "outmigration"


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

"P.S.S. - MRN - Why don't you at least fork over the membership money to keep this site active?"

Wow, its all about money to you NR folks. I'm to be impressed you coughed up a couple bucks to the site? Is this like a pre-pubescent dare? A juvenile macho thing? Are you playing on Daddy's computer again??? In the off chance you're actually post-pubescent, I'll choose to send anybody $$ if and when I decide I would like to. No other reason, certainly not you. You kill me.

Now go ask someone over the age of 12 why farmers can't drain wetlands when every they want to, as you suggested.

M


----------



## Miller (Mar 2, 2002)

Thanks for the reminder David, it's about time I become a member.

:lol:


----------



## Westerner (Mar 15, 2002)

OK, David, I am going to weigh in on this. I AGREE WITH YOUR POINTS ACROSS THE BOARD! The fact is that some "sportsmen" feel that they have the right to make their pass-time a legislative issue unaware that this is what got them to this point in the first place (contrary to popular belief, it is not fee-hunters, NR, or anything else).

NDSU did a study and confirmed that resident hunters outspend NR hunters. This is a fact and I am not arguing with it. It, however, did not specify where those hunters were hunting. I think the days of driving to your favorite "watering hole" and having vast tracts of land open to hunting are over, and no amount of legislation will get them back. Landowners have decided that they want to go about things in a different way. Most land that is posted, if you care to research it, has nothing to do with fee-hunting or any other of the supposed problems. The landowners decided (sometimes independently, sometimes corporately) to end that and to post their land.

As for the comment about golf, I know that many "sportsmen" will argue that they are two different things, to non-sportsmen they are the same. Just because that isn't your perspective doesn't make it invalid. Both activities require lots of space. Some areas are better than others, and generally, the cost reflects this. It is an outdoor activity that allows people exercise and is enjoyed by an enormous number of people. Both require equipment to be carried by the participants.

What has always boggled me is that people will spend $100's on guns and all the other "supplies" (decoys, wardrobe, et al.) they need to hunt, and then presume that their right to hunt (which they do have) also entitles them to "opportunities" to hunt. By having the "right" to hunt, I mean that it is not illegal (provided other laws are obeyed). The opportunity to hunt is a priviledge and most who treat it that way have places that they can hunt.

David, you make an excellent point that the state does own the game, but that it is largely up to the owner of the land to manage the game. I am in favor of sportsmen's groups that help managment (I know some that will provide feeders to the landowner) and sometimes they offer this and other services in exchange for open access. Most, if not all, of the posted land doesn't receive anything from the state to help in the raising of wildlife. It is private land and changing the laws for non-residents will not open up any of this land.

I am a baseball fan. I love watching major-league baseball. I enjoy going to games. It is a part of my heritage (something I did countless times with my grandpa). This fall, there were play-off games in Minneapolis. I would have loved to have gone to them, but they would have cost a lot of money and many of the tickets are purchased by people and groups with more money than me. Just because I love baseball and it is a part of my heritage doesn't give me the right to expect that I will be allowed to go there free of charge.

In state, I am a resident of ND. I pay my state taxes. I attended NDSU for my undergraduate degree. I had to pay tuition (this organization is funded by my tax dollars far more directly than landowners). What if a group came along and said, "OK, Fargo and Grand Forks, I have to pay too much money for my degree. I don't care what it does to your local economies, I don't think you should be allowed to have nearly as many out-of-state students (that includes MN). ND students spend a lot more money on gas, food, lodging, etc. and if you don't cater to them the price will go down. I have a right to education. I am willing to pay some, but not nearly as much. Further, I think there should be a limit on the number of items that can be sold to out-of-state individuals. This includes groceries, gas, electricity, etc. How many times have I stood in line behind someone trying to write an out of state check when they aren't accepted..." This is the same logic that is often used by "sportsmen" to justify their agenda. There is this sense that they can say that to Watford City, or even Dickinson.

My question to resident sportsmen that insist that they support these businesses more than NR do is this: "If you only have time to come out to these small towns once per year, how are you helping their economies more than a NR who does the same thing?" If you are in these towns more frequently, then you probably can set up networks of friendship with people there that will allow them to cater to you. Generally, landowners don't charge to their friends, they charge the people they don't know.

David, I agree with your "list of concerns of resident sportsmen" as that is how I read their posts too. They want to return to a Nirvana that isn't coming back and are trying to get there by forcing their wishes, legislatively, onto others. What they are arguing for is legislative protection of their pass-time, something no other group has or sees itself as entitled to.

I am afraid that the battle lines have been drawn and there is no one to blame but themselves for the current problem of access to good land. And, if access to good land and "opportunities" weren't a problem, then there would be no over-hunting. The problem isn't lack of land or space, but the fact that a large portion of it is locked up. Rather than face that they have had something to do with this, resident "sportsmen" try to blame everyone else and portray themselves as the victim.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Ummm Westerner the only places there are real problems with access is in your neck of the praire - where there are pheasants & a few waterfowl areas that have SOB's. You like pay for access ??? you got it ??? You want to be over ran by NR's that like to pay to hunt ??? I hope you get want you want & keep what you got.

But it is not whats best for the majority of ND or ND towns & like it or not Freelance Hunters are by far the majority of hunters that come to ND. :-?

Don't keep trying to make this something it isn't :roll:


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

I just don't understand those that have to paint and fuel these debates as black/white, switch on/off or all/nothing. What cannot be debated is that the quality of hunting in this state has seriously degraded in many respects. Not a coincidence is that this quality decline has come during the same period we've experienced unprecedented increases in the number of hunters and guiding operations.

Within this context, the "let 'em all in" philosophy is equally unreasonable as the "shut down the borders" one. The reasonable solution, for all, is somewhere in the middle. Now you can rationally debate where the right "middle" is, but some cap or other reasonable restrictions to deal with this pressure does not mean one side "won" and other "lost". The HPC is the perfect example, for it produces a cap this year higher than most resident hunters wanted and lower than most hospitality folks wanted. A boss once told me the sign of a perfect compromise is when neither party walks away feeling they got what they wanted.

In order to be willing to accept this approach, you must accept that hunting in this state represents a larger economic impact than that which occurs each fall. Hunting, you see, is our Rocky Mountains, warm sandy beaches, warm weather, higher wages, world class theater, fine dining, etc. all wrapped up in one. Hunting not only causes some to visit our state each fall, but causes many of us to call ND home year round. When it comes to general hunting, and outstanding bird hunting especially, it is the single lifestyle amenity that no other state can offer better than ND. ND hunters are slightly different than those from other states in that hunting meant just enough more to us that we gave up the career and other personal opportunities that caused nonresidents to live somewhere else. For many of us, it was only the hunting that made enough of a difference compared to other factors to keep us here or cause us to move back.

David, this leads me to the one point on which we can agree. The solution needs to take into consideration what's good for ND - all of ND. This means resident sportspersons must accept pressure levels they consider uncomfortable, to provide rural areas with the fall economic boost. But this also means we must return from over pressure, so we regain the one feature that caused many thousands to stay/come back. You can't "let 'em all in" each fall and expect to retain/attract the tens of thousands year long residents who view hunting as more than a three week venture to another state.

David, as far as your other solutions, I've posted my responses to them following one or more of your earlier posts. For waterfowl, there is no magic bullet that can solve the pressure problems without reducing hunter days. More access to allow more hunters only means more pressure that only results in more gunning for the Sodaks earlier in the year. The "stadium" cannot be made any larger for waterfowl. Additional zones, for now, are DOA. We learned from the last session that zones only pit hunter vs. hunter and hospitality vs. hospitality from different areas of the state. For upland, there is room to grow the stadium through additional public access, but we cannot keep pace with the current pressure increases. The answer lies in a combination of increasing public access and reducing hunter days. Modest license increases are appropriate and necessary (res and nonres), but we don't wish to price anyone out of the opportunity to experience the ND outdoors.

Westerner, you and I share very different viewpoints and don't understand one another well at all. If hunting were a "pass-time" of mine, I'd sell out for much higher wages and visit ND about 12 days each fall. That's what I did up until four years ago. Because hunting is much more to me than a "pass-time", I decided to relocate here, giving up business and other opportunities, and now I spend about 25 days hunting ND each year. This is good for the ND economy - the entire ND economy. I'm not asking for sympathy; I'm just asking for a little recognition there is a legitimate reason for all of ND to find compromise to regain quality hunting opportunities for hunters so passionate about the sport they decided to call ND home.

I don't accept that ND sportspersons efforts to protect/regain quality hunting opportunities are the leading cause of posted or inaccessible land. I have heard of isolated instances where this is true, but for each one of those, there are many times more examples where posting is for family/friends, landowner hunting, fee-generation and, yes, even leased to an outfitter so the landowner can watch a football game without answering the door or phone a dozen different times with requests for access.

The only "battle Lines" that have been drawn are by those on extreme sides of these issues. I'm confident the rest of us can find meaningful compromise between those two sets of lines.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

I suppose I am going to get raked for loving SD, and told I should just move back there, but I think there is something to be said here.

I went back to SD last weekend, and hunted Pheasants. While there I met up with four guys from Ohio, and two from WI. Both stated, and I quote, that the reason they put in for SD was that they would rather have a high quality hunt now and then than a degraded hunt every year. Now I do not agree tha ND hunting is "Degraded", but it is hard to argue the idea that the pressure here does not push birds through into SD faster than Mother Nature explains. I have had some really good hunts here this fall, but the competition is unreal!!!! Now people have to realize that that is real. I think many people had a much lower quality experiance this year, and growth of NR numbers will slow down just a bit.

The other thing I really agree with is Dan saying that many residents stay here for the hunting opportunities, in exchange for the lower wages and such. I know of several people moving south to live in SD and work in ND, so they can have there cake and eat it to. And changing rules is not going to lead to a long term posting of land in ND. For a year, maybe two yes, but time heals all wounds, and eventually we would al be neighbors again. Tom


----------



## Westerner (Mar 15, 2002)

Dan,
I respect your ability to keep a level head in an otherwise heated issue. You manage to consistently stay in the middle and I respect that. I also (grudgingly) agree with you that "hospitality" prople will have to settle for limits lower than they are comfortable with. I thoroughly enjoy reading your posts as they are intelligent, well thought out, and not unnecessarily inflammatory. Even if we don't agree, you are someone I feel I can at least talk to.

My comments about "pass-time" are not meant to "de-value" the experience but to point out that this is how "non-sportsmen" view it. It is a valid activity. While I respect the importance of this activity for you, the fact is that very few people live in North Dakota for the wages or increased business opportunities.

I hope I can remain/become as level headed as you consistently are. It is people like you that will help the "sportsmen's" case enormously!


----------



## Bronco (Aug 12, 2002)

I couldn't leave this one alone! I believe NR's have a right to be here and enjoy our resources, but NR need to open their eyes. Let's look at other states that have hunting opportunities.

Montana- I apply for a elk permit every year and was drawn every year up until about 4 years ago. Montana realizes they only have so many elk and hence only so many elk tags can be distributed. I haven't been drawn for the last 4 years. There are many more NR's like me applying for these tags- but there simply are not enough "elk" / resources for every NR that applies. ND has a resource which is pheasants, ducks geese and grouse. I paid $485 for my last elk license and I believe they are $15 for a Montana resident. In addition- Montana has millions of acres of public lands-while ND has hardly any. Like Montana- ND only has so many resources to go around.

NR's need to understand they are welcome- but only in numbers which our resources can withstand and 30,000 of them is way to many considering 10 years ago there were only 6000 of them. I don't think there is one person on this site that wants to keep all NR's out- they are just concerned with protecting our resources.

Finally, the guides and outfitters are the ones screwing up the rural communities-not the lack of NR's. Before all the $$$ paying NR's came to town there were lots of resident hunters that visited these rural communities. The difference now is alot of the land is posted and leased out to guides- who may only have 10-20 customers per week vs 50-60 resident hunters that used to visit the area but no longer do because everything is posted and overcrowded.

I understand why I can't seem to get a elk tag in Montana- and I think NR waterfowl & upland game hunters coming to ND need to understand why we can't continue with the increased numbers of NR hunters while still protecting our resources. In addition- I pay 30 times what a Montana resident would for an elk tag- why do NR's coming to ND seem to think we are the "bargin in town"????? Instead of paying the big bucks to the guides and outfitters make them pay it to the Game & Fish


----------



## hansonni (Aug 19, 2002)

So limiting the number of NR hunters will increase the quality of hunting for Res hunters? That sounds like a pretty selfish opinion to me. You live in ND so you can hunt every weekend and some days during the week all season every season. Why does that give the right to limit NR? It might slightly give a negative effect to you personally as a Res hunter, but what about other businesses? You can't tell me that this doesn't have a negative consequence for them? If I'm a land owner and I'm not hunting a field a particular weekend, you can be damn sure I'm either going to let no one hunt it or a NR who offers me $150 to hunt the weekend in one of my fields. No one has the right to tell a farmer they can't take $150 from a NR to hunt their land. It's called good economics? Ever hear of that? They can lease the rights to combine it, why can't they lease the rights to hunt it? Will it affect the Res hunter? Absolutely! That's life though and that's the bigger picture. Hey ND! Want me to stay here and live here after I graduate? What do you have to offer me? The lowest average salary in the nation? How about your great waterfowl hunting?! Well, I guess I wouldn't know how great the waterfowl hunting is, because for the past four years that I've been here it has been illegal for students to hunt because they're out of state!!! And this year there is a cap for NRs. Yeah, limit the number of hunters in ND, while your at it, limit the number of students at UND and NDSU, limit the number of people who can work here, and lets put a salary cap on the limited number of jobs you do have here! Those are great ideas, huh? Stay hot! It sounds like a majority of people that are getting upset about NR hunters are worried about their own personal hunting. That sounds pretty selfish to me, that sounds like the me, me, me attitude that the NR hunters are being accused of? Think of your own economy and how you are not doing it any good! Think of the farmers leasing their land out because they are just trying to make an extra buck!


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Lets call a moritorium on this kind of stuff. Unless it's a new idea or revelation :roll:

NR's that understand will hopefully support the concepts of Freelance hunting. As these things get debated this next session & will want to see our unique Laws protected.

There has to be Changes & New Rukes & New Laws will be introduced & passed. The Cap was an interim step in this process. Hopefully & GOD willing our leaders will do whats best for ND ???

ND has a history of doing things it's own way & having unique ways to accomplish them. If your not from here, or plan on staying here ??? Why try & stir the pot ??? Or pretend you have any answers ??? If you don't hunt or own land ??? Why try & make problems ???

In the end we will unite & support & all do the right things. We always have & always will. Seems many without a real stake in things, like to pretend they are in the know & have the pulse of the people all figured out :roll: The issues are more complex than that. But I think are understood & now time will tell.


----------



## muzzy (Mar 21, 2002)

Fetch I'm right there with you. Hansoni, I am not sure where you are from or how or what hunting is where you come from but it sure must be different from here. Hunting should be a tradition not a sale item. Greedy? what is more greedy, wanting to preserve a heritage we have here or try and turn a quick dollar? As far as you not being able to hunt the whole season, when you decided to become a student here you could have become a ND resident at the same time. You do not have to retain residency in your former state. That is the big problem, you probably want to buy resident license in two states and are ticked off that you can't. Where does your theory of limiting college students come in anyway? Institutions of higher learning are a wonderful thing, but if you think your tuition is keeping UND running think again. If it wasn't for state tax dollars, none of our colleges would be in business.

For years and years, ND has been very friendly. You should see what it used to be like, no signs anywhere. You ask someone to hunt and the answer was "no problem, you guys didn't even need to bother asking" Try that now. Do you have any kids Hansoni? Think about them, I have a couple and have started taking them with me on some outings. Sometimes I wonder if I am doing the right thing by getting them hooked on something that might not be there in the future. A lot of people in ND do have ties to the land and own land. Remember, this land was all homesteaded and most of us are descendents of that and a lot of people on this board probably own land. Here is what is going to happen more and more. We still have the family farm in our ownership. It has never been posted in over 100 years we've owned it. Why? We also hunt other peoples land and extend the same courtesy. We also believe that hunting is a right of the people who live here. As more and more land becomes closed around us we are going to be forced to actually control access on ours and post it. When is this going to happen? who knows but the way things are going it will be inevitable. Why would we do this? As much as we hate to, we need to have something for our children to use not to make a buck.

As this happens, we lose more and more hunters and that will hurt us all in the long run.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Hansonni

I'm terribly sorry that your undergraduate studies are not paying off. The answers you seek are pretty obvious. Perhaps you have had course in US government. The very same rationale governing national autonomy applies to state autonomy.

Consider, for a second, US immigration policy. The US limits the number of folks comming into and staying in the US, many of them better educated, harder working, with less sense of entitlement than americans. Why is that? The US could easily "brain drain" the rest of the world. Everyone of the minimum wage earners around the world would be glad to earn minimum wage here. The national economic impact of an open imigration policy would be huge. Why do think that doesn't occur? What do you think the downside would be?

I have lots of Chinese friends - they think the US could handle 30-40 miillion chinese immigrants a year. If you were consistent in your views, you would support an unlimited immigration policy. Is that indeed true? Do you think the potential economic boom is reason enough?

M.


----------



## Westerner (Mar 15, 2002)

Are you actually comparing US immigration policy to Res. vs. NR hunting in ND??? The reason for the limits on immigration are so that we don't flood the market with people willing to work low wage jobs driving everyone below the poverty line. You are saying that this is somehow similar to allowing people to come in for a few weeks (if that long) to hunt. 
I actually saw a reasonable solution posted on here a while back (I think it was either KenW or Fieldhunter, but I am not sure) that said, what if we extended the hunting season by 2 months at the end but only for resident hunters. Have Fee hunting companies charge a nominal sum (~$25/day) for access to their land. This would result in a windfall for small communities, and it would spread it out (it certainly wouldn't hurt them), give some to the fee hunting companies, and eliminate out-of-state competition for the land while granting to commercial interests their regular season.
I would make a small change in this. I would say that I like the idea of extending the season STRICTLY for resident hunters on the agreement that they only hunt males (obviously). I would put a hard cap on the charge for per/day hunting on land ($50-75/gun/day MAXIMUM) since they would have to cover expenses, as long as the landowner has agreed to this with his service (written) and no guide or other service is involved. Those services would be open but for whatever the guide/outfitter chose to charge, but charges for access to the land would be capped. This would allow the landowners to have the choice of whether or not to allow their land into the program, but their would be financial incentive to include it since they would get some money out of the deal. Maybe even put in a rule that says that fee-hunting companies cannot "profit" more than 10% (or they would have no reason to participate) of the gross charged to insure that this would go into the farmer/rancher hands and not lining someone's pocket. Postings would continue to be enforced as usual (no hunting without permission). This seems to me to be one of the most fair compromises I have heard since it allows much more open access to the land but only for residents, but the commercial interests still get the beginning of the season when most of the hunters are here. 
Since most of the money from fee hunting outfits goes toward paying their employees (guides, lodging, food, etc.) and presuming that free-lance hunters wouldn't use those particular things, then they wouldn't have to pay for them (doesn't that make sense?). Also, this would open up some of the public land that is otherwise so heavily hunted by out of state people (no out of state plates!). How does that sound?


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

So you're saying more immigrants will increase pressure on jobs and lower the quality/quantity/opportunity for jobs for everyone. And that's bad.

HHummm, sounds nothing like the exploding NR number problem here.....

M.


----------



## Westerner (Mar 15, 2002)

The difference is that letting in any and all immigrants hurts everyone (those that have jobs and those that do not). The fact is that I am not a hunter (that is not a secret) so the number of NR hunters doesn't affect me in anything other than positive ways. Since maybe 10-20% of people in this state hunt at all, then if you are going to make comparisons it would be wise to at least have it affect more than 1/3 of people (preferably closer to half).


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

You're quite mistaken Slick. Only a small minority might be hurt by unlimited immigration. We could triple the GDP. It would make the economy take off like a rocket. Good for everyone.

I sell chinese food - wholesale! I want 30 million more customers. Won't hurt me, or us connected folk. Only positive for me too. We wanna make money! Screw the poor people and their quality of life, there aren't many of them - 10%-20% tops - who cares - they are a minority? Screw em - let everyone in - Yahoo - economic development!! The country will prosper.

Nope. I still don't see no allegory.

M.


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

Let's see, if we carry this analogy on the res vs non-res and compare it to our tough immigration laws how will that affect us.

We now have signs in Spanish next to our English language signs. So does this mean we would have to have signs in Minnesotanin or Wisconsininin, and have to root for the Gophers or Badgers.


----------



## hansonni (Aug 19, 2002)

muzzy, i think you missed alot of my points. no, you don't know where i hunt and what my intentions are, so please don't assume about me. i'm not trying to 'double dip' with residency so i can hunt in two different places. i have a job here, pay nd taxes here, pay in-state tuition here, and have lived here for many, many consecutive months now. but nd doesn't want me to hunt here cuz my license says another state on it. funny, how almost all other states let nd students obtain resident licenses to hunt their land! but no, nd would rather discourage their younger kids from experiencing one of the biggest assets that it has, it's hunting. why would nd want students to experience what it has to offer, it's not like they want young kids to stay here after graduating anyways right?! i think you missed the point about limiting the number of students that could attend UND or NDSU. i was exagerating to get my point across. i also think of hunting as a tradition and do go every year with my dad. but i do not think that i would be upset just because you came to my state and hunted ducks or geese for two weeks! why are you upset about me doing the same?! do we have different traditions? do we come from a different breed of people?
mrn, i never said i was taking undergrad studies, but my grad studies are paying off quite well already thank you very much. no, i never took a us government class, i am not going to be a politician when i get out so i need to take some tougher classes sorry. you are taking about letting 30 million chinese people in to the US to perminently live here and comparing that to NR hunters coming over for a MAXIMUM time period of two weeks and hunting ducks and geese???????? are you serious?!!?!? that's a little bit different and i really hope that i'm not the only one that thinks that. you want 30 million chinese people to come here every yerar and visit and spend money in the states for three weeks?! great, i'm all for it!! let em pore in like rain, they can spend all the money and time they want here. or is that against our tradition or somethin?! 
fetch, i'm not trying to stir any pots here, i'm not pretending to have any answers. i do think i have a pretty good grasp on the issues, maybe not all of them i agree with or think are significant, but i do follow as closely as i can. you ask if i'm not from here or plan on staying here, "why try & make problems"? i'm definitely not making any problems for anyone by stating my point of view, if my opinion created huge problems for anyone, then you've got a great life and i'd love to trade places with you cuz there are people with real problems who won't get bent out of shape about an honest opinion. i'm sorry if you think i don't have a say or should open my mouth. you know for starters, that's not a real good way to try and retain the youth that is here now. why not let them explore nd for what it really is and let them experience what you consider the best part of nd. maybe then they will really see what a great place it is to live, and maybe they too will develop your opinions and become active in the fight for your causes. how do you expect young people to care? you don't even give us a chance?! i guess that's all for now, and that's just my opinion, i'm definitely not trying to "pretend _ have any answers" cuz i'm "not from here, or plan on staying here" and it really sounds like you guys are trying to get me to stay here._


----------



## muzzy (Mar 21, 2002)

Hansoni, if you want to hunt here why don't you just finish becoming a resident here, that sounds pretty simple to me. I stated that I didn't know where you come from or how hunting is there so don't tell me not to assume anything about you, I didn't. But if you have the opinions that you do of selling access to publically owned animals you evidently were brought up in a different social climate than here. How do you address my point that this is one dangerous spiral and everytime doors get shut it causes more and more doors to be shut. I gave you my own example. My dad's neighbors are starting to guide deer hunters. That land is no longer available for any one to hunt with out paying. Now a local group is starting a "hunt club" and leasing land. Less and less places to hunt. Like I said there has never been a restriction on access on my dad's land since it was in our family. When this problem gets bad enough, we are going to be forced to restrict access so we have something left for ourselves. This is a sad story, imagine being a kid wanting to go out hunting and all the doors are locked. Your story about what are you doing to make me want to stay here is easily answered. Hey, I am educated also and like a lot of people who stay in this state it isn't for the wages. I live to hunt, if my opportunities are eroded, see you later.

If you have spent any amount of time on this board, you should see that most people have very few problems with nonresidents. A lot of people here hunt with nonresidents. I hunt with nonresidents every once in a while. The real problem is the commercialization of wildlife. People who guide, are outfitters, or lease their land for hunting access are causing the problems. Also out of state land purchases and leasing also take a bite out of access. Since it is impossible to limit the commercialization of hunting opportunities you do the next best thing and limit the consumer which just happens to be in this case the nonresident.


----------



## Bronco (Aug 12, 2002)

You did a great job trying to explain the situation to this guy Muzzy! I don't get it! The time and effort Hansonni has spent on this board raising hell he could have went to the local DOT and spent his $20 and acquired a resident driving license which would have solved his ND hunting problems :roll:


----------



## administrator (Feb 13, 2002)

I ask that everyone please take a breath before posting. Debate and differences of opinion can be constructive, but personal attacks I WILL NOT TOLERATE!

I'm going to be in New Orleans for the next 4 days, play nice until I get back.  :-?


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

hansonni

Oh my bad man - I had you pegged as a 4th year UND freshman who had yet to pass english comp. My bad, really. Still, you can't quite grasp the parallels involving state autonomy, sovereignty, and control of a fix or limited resource. Yet another reason for liberal arts education...

So, you first hunted ND 6 weeks ago and you feel you have a real good understanding of the issue??? Good luck.

M.


----------



## hunt4life (Mar 7, 2002)

Nicely said muzzy.

At one time in the sate of North Dakota, most of the land was not posted and there were small towns bustling with commerce during hunting season.

All were welcome, there was plenty of land available to hunt on and plenty of money was spent in the small communities.

The cost of hunting for a young hunter was low and the future of hunting was bright.

Farmers made money farming and life was good.

Will we ever see that again?


----------



## muzzy (Mar 21, 2002)

Sad to say it, but no. I am afraid we are going down a road we will never be able to turn around on.


----------



## hansonni (Aug 19, 2002)

I'm sorry, but what is the plan to prevent the farmers from charging people to enter onto their land?! Honestly?! Is ND going to make a law saying that farmers must allow people to hunt their land even if they don't want them to?! I'm not saying that the you guys are well off right now. But honestly, there isn't a chance in hell of the government saying to the farmer "you can't charge people money to hunt your land." That would not be right either. This is the times we live in. Two years ago my family and another family went together and bought a healthy chunk of land just so we had a place to deer hunt in the future. We were getting tired of the overcrowded public lands that held hunderds of fair weather hunters. So we did what we had to do, bought our own land. I'm not saying we wanted to do it, we were almost forced to. People are offering these farmers a healthy chunk of change for seasonal hunting that the farmers have to do nothing for, basically free money to them. How is this ever going to stop? They are NOT selling the animals in my opinion, they are renting their land for people to use it, hunt it, or whatever. I can't see it.
*Bronco*- again someone makes the claim that I am "raising hell" on this forum, I really am just stating my opinion like everyone else on here is doing. Is it really hell? The situation is a little more complicated than you are aware of, so officially becoming a resident for me is out of the question.
*MRN*- I'm not sure I understand the liberal arts education comment if you could fill me in, but where did I ever state that I had any answers. I said I had an understanding of the issues. Just because someone has not lived here for 10 or 20 years, they can't have an understanding of the issues?! Yes perhaps I may be bias to the fact that ND put a cap on NR hunters, cuz I am a NR and my opinions (for the most part) will reflect that just as yours do about resident hunters.
*muzzy*- i guess all of the above would be my reply to you. Like I said, I just don't see an end to the leasing of land to hunters as long as there are hunters willing to pay it. I tell you what, I would probably do it too. I honestly would let hunters on my land for a few hundred dollars a week and not feel like I was degrating myself or tradition or hunting. I would purely be an economical decision. That of course is my point of view. And like I said it probably is bias, but so is yours. Thats all for now folks, good luck to those deer hunters this weekend.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Buying & leasing land to hunt - One of the biggest reasons to limit NR's (& it works) But not what we want - (More old bad ideas)

This is much more complicated than YOU know also - what you think is right & inevitable has happened before. YOU will not like the results of the future, if things continue to head the current directions, people like you want.

(NOTE I deleted my own part s of this post after finding out I was wrong) This is the way it should be - Not whine & accuse someone - thru emails & then the other person can't defend or retract a post :roll: :******: :eyeroll: :iroll:


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

If people don't have guts enough to either come on here & tell me & all -what I have said & done that is so wrong or innappropriate - or at least PM me then I don't want to be a moderator. Or to ask for clarification without whining to the administration then - this sites is about to get real interesting or real boring :******:


----------



## muzzy (Mar 21, 2002)

Fetch, I guess I didn't see anything wrong with any of the posts either. That is what is wrong with fishing buddy, the inability to say anything that would be in contradiction to the commercial side of it. Well, got to go and finish packing for hunting. Later


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

*Leasing hunting land is the number one gremlin that will destroy ND hunting as we know it. * :******:

The problem is once leasing becomes established in an area of the state, it can often run out of control. Just like the movie Gremlins - once it starts - can run out of control.

I have found that more Twin City residents pay/lease hunting rights in ND than I cared to originally believe. Many will pay even if they are there for only 5 days. Many speak of it like it is no big deal.

It is not just nonresidents. That big leased area northeast of Woodworth is ND resident controlled correct (it was there in the early 80s and back again now) ?? The banker in Underwood, ND has purchased nearly all of the land south of Audubon NWR. He is a resident that controls nearly all goose and pheasant hunting on the southside of that refuge. This goes way beyond leasing.

As leasing or landowning (for hunting) becomes better established in an area some residents and NRs will jump on the wagon. Just the wrong way to go.

It is a big deal. While I live in the Twin Cities - when I return to ND to hunt - I hunt the way I was raised in ND. I will be friendly to farmers, always ask if I know where they live, help with chores or a cattle drive, give them a bird or two if they want them...

Pay or lease .... Sorry No Fn Way. :******:

I am done ranting. Going deer hunting.


----------



## Bronco (Aug 12, 2002)

Hansonni- I don't get it :eyeroll: If you have enough money to buy a huge tract of land and go to college at the same time- What is the problem with purchasing the non-resident license? Secondly- we all have to make choices in life and if you don't want to officially become a ND resident and reap some of the benefits of that- then fine- that is your choice. You should make the best of the hunting opportunities in your resident state.

As for buying up the land- that is good news, (and I hope in the future) ND can take advantage of this. For example- in Minnesota if you own a lake cabin/land and don't claim residency in Minnesota you are subject to higher property taxes. I know a friend in ND who owns a cabin near Detroit Lakes and spends more in Minnesota property taxes then he does in Bismarck with his primary home. He has a large home so I am estimating he spends about $3000 per year for his cabin in Minnesota on property taxes.

I have heard some grumblings here in ND over this very idea. This is a win/win for all involved. Wealthy out of state people can purchase their private hunting lands and hopefully ND will see fit to charge 2-3 times as much property tax to help curb ND funding shortfalls. Maybe some tax relief for residents or help for rural farmers/residents-Everyone wins


----------



## hansonni (Aug 19, 2002)

Bronco-I don't recall what I said about buying land to deer hunt in, I should have said that my family bought the land, if I said that I did then I was in error. I hardly have enough money to drive to that land to hunt so I could never afford that kind of transaction, which is also why I can't buy a NR liscense to hunt for a few short days. And yes, I do make the best of my opportunities to hunt in my home state, of course they're not nearly as many there! I think you bring up an interesting point about the land tax. I think you hit on a pretty interesting point that may have some potential. I'm sure there are plenty of people willing to pay that high tax you talk about if they purchase hunting land. I think it is dangerous though, because if it starts to catch on, you guys are in the same boat as you are now. There will be too many people having land that will be posted and hunted on for a profit. That still leaves the resident hunter with fewer and fewer opportunities, and this cap on us NR hunters will stick because there isn't "enough" land. Then we too are in the same boat as we are in now. Maybe something could be worked out to put a cap on the acres that can be bought, and that high tax could go into purchasing more PLOTS land or waterfowl development. It is tough to say and I don't have the answers to it, but a descent idea nonetheless. I still don't know what the legislation would do to prevent the leasing of land to hunters then?! It still would be tough to stop that????????????


----------

