# ND's Nonresident Owners



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Raw data on ND's out-of-state landownership is as follows with the breakdown per county:

Adams, 202,344 acres
Barnes, 106.983
Benson, 93,945
Billings, 30,922
Bottineau, 165,423
Bowman, 93,492
Burke, 109,472
Burleigh, 131,356
Cass, 192,039
Caviler, 118,960
Dickey, 110,025
Divide, 168,532
Dunn, 76,558
Eddy, 37,185
Emmons, 107,793
Foster, 46,250
Golden Valley, 95,517
Grand Forks, 142,964
Grant, 165,046
Griggs, 66,878
Hettinger, 93,902
Kidder, 60,320
LaMoure, 91,838
Logan, 85,697
McHenery, 104,214
McIntosh, 83,923
McKenize, 172, 943
McLean, 145,655
Mercer, 80,873
Morton, 76,370
Mountrail, 135,128
Nelson, 107,797
Oliver, 62,166
Pembina, 112,895
Pierce, 75,170
Ramsey, 101, 864
Ransom, 51,560
Renville, 74,877
Richland, 134,023
Rolette, 67,607
Sargent, 77,349
Sheridan, 78,798
Sioux, 52,338
Slope, 85,706
Stark, 61,168
Steele, 62,557
Stutsman, 174,304
Towner, 90,167
Traill, 129,752
Walsh, 111,214
Ward, 121,965
Wells, 121,965...?
Williams, 190,032

Average per county is 14%, with apx *5,636,746 acres owner by NR*. Now take the average rent per acre per county. Gone out of state. And the appreciation of the land. Gone too. And the legislature has voted for the guarenteed NR hunting license the last three sessions. Which sells more ND land. Check out the Scorecard ratings for those votes ( http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/scorecard2005.php ). Election in November!


----------



## hunterboy (Dec 5, 2004)

DO WE HAVE TO START THIS AGAIN?????? uke: :******:


----------



## Ima870man (Oct 29, 2003)

Thanks for the info Dick. It will probably come in handy one day. Keep up the great work with information supply.

8)

Ima870man


----------



## dblkluk (Oct 3, 2002)

Thanks Dick. Very interesting and alarming!!!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

BIG DEAL, Come on Dick get serious here. How many of these acres are owned by people who got these from inheritance? I would guess about 90% of these lands are owned by members of families that once lived here. What are you going to do now try to pass a law that you can't leave property to those who live out of state? How much is owned for hunting? very very little


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Thanx Dick.

North Dakota is for sale and is being sold to highest bidder purely for RECREATIONAL TIES.
Backup what your spewing g/o. Irrelevant jibberish so early in the day, your starting a little early.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

4curl, My days are long early to rise and late at night. I'm not complaining, lets do some backing up what we say. How many of those acres are agriculture, and how many recreation. Put some facts out here kind of like the extra million acres the guides have. Dick is still looking for them.Grand Forks, Trail, Cass, And Richland have 580,240 acres of the 5,636,746 roughly 10%. How many of these acres do you suppose are for hunting?????? Other than a few western counties this same scenario will play out through out the state. What about the residents who have purchased land for recreation????


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Come'on G/O if you are going to make that kind of statement with numbers.....back it up.Where did you get the 90% from.I could say any number and be as accurate.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Ken, Why don't you back it up?? Because like myself you can't we have only these facts and thats it. I do know from living all my life in this area I know how many acres are owned my for hunting and how many are owned by former residents and you do to.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

g/o said:
 

> What about the residents who have purchased land for recreation????


More power to them, they have chosen to stay here and put up with the depressed economy as well as the horsecrap winters that we sometimes experience. Contributing to NoDak in a helluva lot more ways than any NR landowner would, IMHO.

Will you not acknowldge that there is a definite spike on land sales to out of state interests in the last decade? Not all for recreation but a large portion certainly.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Will you not acknowldge that there is a definite spike on land sales to out of state interests in the last decade? Not all for recreation but a large portion certainly


4Curl, I have heard these horror stories but have not witnessed it. Now Hettinger County by the reports in the paper has seen quite a bit of activity. I will acknowledge like I said before in some western counties. Like I say you will find there is very little of this land owned by people for recreation state wide.


----------



## Shu (Oct 21, 2003)

Let's say a farmer retires with 10,000 acres and moves to Florida, leasing it to his kids or another farmer. I assume this would this count as NR ownership? The data is probably not there to determine this, but it would be interesting to know the split between NR farming & recreation.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

g/o said:


> 4Curl, I have heard these horror stories but have not witnessed it.


I've hunted waterfowl from Rock Lake to Bowman and from Kenmare to Lidgerwood and points in between, all it takes is a little dialogue with the locals to find out how land ownership has changed and their use of it.

Hell I've seen and lived it first hand over and over in the old stompin' grounds around the Garrison area.



Shu said:


> Let's say a farmer retires with 10,000 acres and moves to Florida, leasing it to his kids or another farmer.


That would make him a NR.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

4Curl, I've traveled the state from corner to corner also and talked to many. I hear of some but can you honestly say of the numbers of acres posted here more than 10% are for recreation? If so what would be your guess?


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

The only acres I'm worried about are the ones that are holding birds and if it is posted for guides or out of staters. The rest are useless.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of oppurtunities still out there. But the pie is definitely shrinking.


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2006)

I'd say stop complaining and start buying! Soon enough, it's going to come down to hunting your own property. I chipped in with my two brothers and a buddy and bought a chunk in northern mn to hunt because we were being crowded out of the public land my pop had started hunting in '58 and I in '76 around '90 some guys from new ulm pulled up and walked right between our tents to get to where they wanted to hunt. when we finally confronted them, they told us until we can show them a deed they would hunt wherever they wanted to and there was nothing we could do about it. Well we did do something, we got a deed. If you think this kind of behavior is isolated, just go pheasant hunting or duck hunting on public land opening weekend, you pick the state. I know it stinks but there are some out there that don't give two cents for sportsmanship. Get there early and they will pull up two minutes before the season starts and they will walk right in front of you. :******:


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> The only acres I'm worried about are the ones that are holding birds and if it is posted for guides or out of staters. The rest are useless.


That would look good on your tombstone, one of your more famous quotes. I'm glad I don't have to go through life with a chip like that on my shoulder.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Just so your clear, I don't go through the ritual of scouting and setting up just for the hell of it. 
Come on g/o, I've intentionally NOT lambasted you for civility reasons in our discussions. If you like I could start. :roll:


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Come on g/o, I've intentionally NOT lambasted you for civility reasons in our discussions. If you like I could start.


Go for it, but remember its a two way street :lol:


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Thats all I can stands and I can't stands it no more (Popeye)

***** all you want about NRs buying up north dakota. Again... you can't swing a cat here in OT County Mn and not hit somebody from NoDak. I drove from Dent to Pelican Rapids (20 miles) last Sunday and counted 72 vehicles. 3 to 1 NoDak to Mn plates. (3 were from Wisconsin and 2 from Nebraska and 2 from Illinois).

Those guys who are buying land out there?...wanna know where they are getting the money? Many of them are selling Mn. lakeshore to people from NORTH DAKOTA! (amongst other places other than Mn)

I PERSONALLY KNOW OF 3 OF THEM WHO ARE DOING JUST THAT!

Im talking thousands of acres of North Dakota.

You come here and rent a cabin and stay for a week. You come here and stay at the NR family cabin that has been owned for eons every weekend all summer. You come here and retire and buy up lakeshore. You come here for work and live on the lake and...

Why in the hell should you guys get your undies in a bundle about folks from out of state buying up hunting land out there when you have just as much opportunity as they do. Want some land free and clear to hunt in NoDak??? Move to Mn, get a better paying job and go back and buy it!

See how much fun it is to own land out there and use it for 14 days a year (depending on your job its more like 5 days a year). Better yet...have old friends out there call you up and say "Jeeze the ducks are down...get your butt out here and hunt my sloughs like you have done for the last 12 years" and you have to say, "Sorry, I burnt my two weekends already" or "My kid has a big football game". Or "I would but I sure hate the looks I get in the parking lot at the Standard station in Valley City when they see my plates".

Thing is that if I did come out there and so did Joe Blow from Wisconsin or Iowa, there would be just as many ducks as there are going to be because there are only X number of resident hunters and (sorry to say) your numbers arent growing expontially, and the ducks are there not because of you but because of geography and population.

If you never spend time in Mn and you own huting land in NoDak that you think is degraded by NRs hunting, and are ****** about the invasion...more power to ya. You are no different than me.

If you frequent Mn. for recreation, live in Fargo, GF...wherever in NoDak and dont own any hunting land out there and feel that you are being screwed because you have a tougher time finding free land to hunt that you never owned in the first place...GROW THE HECK UP!

I am sick up and fed with the crying that goes on here... both ways. You guys want to be able to come to Mn, fish the waters for 9 months for $35.00, jet ski, water ski, party, shop the tourist traps, drive like idiots, buy a cabin ( or at least stay at one either owned by a rellie or rented)...generally be a pain in the a$$ to anyone who lives here full time, but by golly, "you outta staters better keep out of NoDak for the lengthy 2 weeks you are allowed to hunt in the L&C state for over $200+" because "we are so overcrowded that we cant shoot ducks like we did in the 50s"...

Gimmie a break!

When you guys make the journey to lakey Mn, the prices on gas and groceries and beer and lumber and everything else goes up and the locals have to pay it too.

All the "trickle down" theory BS I hear about NRs putting money in my pocket is just that...BS. Anything I gain, I lose in higher prices and taxes.

If the NRs didnt own the cabins and homes on the lakes of Mn...Somebody from Mn would own them! Simple as that.

There are more people in this state looking for a slice of heaven than you can shake a stick at. Dont believe me? Put "Gramma Nodak's" cabin and 75 feet of lakeshore on an OTC lake up for sale in a Mpls. paper for $250,000.00 and see how many phone calls you get in the next week.

If NRs weren't buying up hunting land in NoDak, you guys in Fargo sure as heck wouldnt. (at least you dont seem too hot to do it) You are under the impression that "John Q. Nodak Farmer" should stay in business and keep the it local just for you and your hobby. Comes a time when you need to accept reality. We have over here. Sucks, but it is what it is.

Bottom line...

They quit making lakes and land and duck sloughs a long time ago but we as a society keep cranking out kids and keeping old folks alive longer every day. If you arent willing to make the investment, somebody else will and all of your statistics and crying wont mean doodly squat!

If anybody ever wanted their cake and an easy meal its you guys.

Good Governor, I bought land and lakeshore here in Mn and have enough to see me and mine through. Wasn't easy but I did it. Figured it was worth it as the population isnt getting any smaller. Gave up on being a guest over there because of the $ and feeling like an intruder and then now I read a thread here about how you guys are upset that natural resources are being bought up in NoDak by NRs ?

What planet are you from anyway?

You still have a chance. If you can get your hands on some money or if you have money, buy the land. Otherwise...live with it!

Hate to tell you this but you are sucking on a dry teat if you think things will stay as they are...or were. And when that swampland and grassland out there hits $2000 to $3000 an acre like it has here and you are totally out of luck, Im gonna be the first to say I told you so!

Tell me that you are doing what you are doing for future generations. (applause) too little, too late. Unless you can control the population and the economy, you are beating a dead horse.


----------



## hunterboy (Dec 5, 2004)

AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN !!!!!!! YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!!! :beer:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Do you find it odd that *our * legislators (half of whom are coming up for election this fall) prohibit aliens from buying ND ag land? And also NR corporations? And also nonprofit entities? And they further restrict public land purchase with no-net gain, limit bidding to appraised value and frost the cake with advisarial boards that wouldn't approve a transaction in hell? And then tell you with a straight face tourism is the savior of ND and they are all for it.

And the same legislators with a  promote unlimited license sales. Which sells more ND land across the border. Guess you can have your cake and eat it too. :withstupid: 
Just got 2 sale bills in the mail promoting "hunting land " parcels in ND, it isn't even sold as farm land anymore. :evil: 
___________________________________________________
For g/os benifit, since his once fertile mind is dehydrating from the drought, the "millions" acres leased (by private individuals) came from Dean and you sat right there in the same room I did g/o when he said it.
:beer: Going to be hot this week too so relax a little bit g/o. I'll do the math for you since outfitters can't count past I. A little over a hundred million bucks in rent going out of state, at a conservative $20 pa. Add on appreciation and there's another billion.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Yep Dick,Dean said a lot of things and when you challenged him he could not back them up. I was at one meeting when he said there were all these outfitters with over a township of land. I challenged him on that one also. Dean was a politician and a good one, he was smooth. He played to the audience he had. Funny how you guys praised Dean, yet when it came time for someone to take his place you insisted on someone from within. But where did your hero Dean come from?

I know this may come as a shock to you but many of us who live along the borders farm in both states. But I'll still give you your 20 per acre, and again say big deal. How much money comes to this state from people out of state? You got to do better than that Dick.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

g/o said:


> Ken, Why don't you back it up?? Because like myself you can't we have only these facts and thats it. I do know from living all my life in this area I know how many acres are owned my for hunting and how many are owned by former residents and you do to.


So what numbers do you want me to back up that I supposedly stated????


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> How many of these acres are owned by people who got these from inheritance? I would guess about 90%


Ken, If you would read again I said I would guess. That's right and I am probably way high on my guess. Very little of the land owned by N/R for hunting purposes. So whats the big deal? I have many relatives who own land here and got it from inheritance. Should we penalize them because they chose to live elsewhere. You are originally from MN, if you were to inherit land there should that also be some sort of crime?


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

G/O .....I didn't say anything about penalizing non-res. landowners.All I did was question your guess and ask where you got 90% from.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

g/o,

I agree with you that they should be able to own the land. However, would you agree that maybe they should be taxed at a higher rate then a resident? It would keep more tax dollars in state and also discourage nonresidents from owning land here.

I mean some kid who moved to NR State 20years ago and just inherited his grandfathers land in ND, probably would not want to keep it if he had to pay higher taxes for not living here. Kind of make it a disensentive to keep it. Who knows maybe he would decide to move back here and live, providing more economical impact then simply a tax paying NR.

I just know that every year, there are more and more NR landowners in my area.

My :2cents: !


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Ken, I get my guess from living in a small town. If a parcel of land gets sold, go to the coffee shop the next day and you will know. Same as the area you live in . Like I say 10% would be on the long side.

Huntnfish, Here is my nickles worth on this subject. I don't believe we should penalize someone because they inherited the family farm. I would however go along with a higher rate for investors hunters etc.

Example lets say your uncle Fred dies and leaves you 320 acres of land. You have no intentions of selling and would like to hang on to it for future generations. I say fine and pay the current tax rate. Now let say I happen to own a 160 acres next to Freds and you decide you sure would like to have that also. Go ahead and buy it but this will be taxed at a higher rate.

I don't see what the big deal is why people would want to punish someone because they inherited some land.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> "I would but I sure hate the looks I get in the parking lot at the Standard station in Valley City when they see my plates".


Yea, I sure am glad we hired all those college kids from Valley City to stare at people funny. It has really slowed the fall boat parade. I think it is a win-win. They keep down the # of blue plates and then we also employ them after college to slow the outmigration of our young people. I knew it would be a great program. All for $5.00 per stare.

Oh yea, They really have been glaring at Wisconsin people and they glare twice as hard if they have a Green Bay Packer sticker on the bumper.

:eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

It's not the plates that draw the stares, its the cattail painted boats. I personally find it fun to imagine the conversations that go on while launching them.

"Hey Steve. I'll drop the boat in the road ditch there and you can go park the truck up in the field approach 20 yards ahead. While you are putting on your waders I'll go throw out the five strings of bills, two strings of cans and that sack of mallards. Once I'm done with the decoys I'll go anchor the boat on the corner posts of that fence, you should be done with your waders and have the dog out by then and you can walk over to the boat. It should only be about a 40 yard walk."

or

"It's going to be tough getting the boat over that fence. I saw a lot of canadian geese roosted on the bank there yesterday when we were scouting and some gadwalls too. We are going to have to be careful when driving the boat. I don't want to clog the mud buddy with toilet paper and rubbers."


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

If one of you guys wanted to make an interesting video this Fall how about a video of the Boat Parade. This Parade starts about 2-3 days prior to the opening of the NR waterfowl season in ND. I know some of these guys use the baots as a way to haul their stuff to ND.

Just set up your equipment someplace near the border between ND and MN on I-94. I'm sure you would be able to get hours of footage and it might be interesting to see the wide variety of the boats used and how they were packed.

Before some of you give me grief for this, I'll say that I really don't have any problem with guys hunting from boats other than the ones that set up on the roosts and chase the ducks around. Think that doesn't happen? A story for another time. I will say that judging from the 1000's of boats that I see come through Fargo every opener, that it's going to be interesting to see if they all find a place to put those boats due to the drought everywhere in the state.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Boat parade?
Wanna see a boat parade?
Come to my neck of the woods any time between May and October.

The thing is guys, there are more of you over here for a longer period of time than the other way round.

The only boat I have ever taken to Dakota was a Carsten's Pintail skiff and that is because I would rather hunt over water as we do in Minnesota.

(By the way, the hunting in Mn was fantastic out of boats for eons so dont try and blame that on the lack of birds here now.)

Sure you can stand in waders 3 paces off of a gravel road and scratch a limit by pass shooting but what is the point? Just killing birds?

You can spend X amount of time (somthing that most non residents dont have a lot of) scouting and searching and asking for a field to hunt and shoot your 6 ducks.

To find a slough that is not a roost and locate yourself on some geography and put out a couple dozen decoys that you made yourself, have the birds play the game, the dog do her job and a bag of birds to eat is not evil.

If some of you guys crawled in a boat from time to time, you may just find the state a lot less crowded than you do now.

Drying up out there huh? Too bad.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

I'm thinking the rec tax would be a good deal (on ag land). Make it a one time tax paid by the purchaser. This idea was floated before in the last session and might come up again.  It has merit, one would think the ag comm. candidates would be interested in the amount of land flowing out of state. Since they are *AGRICULTURE COMMISSIONER CANDIDATES*.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Dick, Of course I disagree with you :lol: I would rather have it like commercial tax. For instance my land is ag and I decide to set up a high fence hunting operation. Then it should be kicked into a recreation or ??? other tax than ag. (I figured you would like my example)


----------



## mallard (Mar 27, 2002)

Tax it at the same rate as Minnesota lake property,then give the money to the townships and counties where the land is located.Roads,schools,etc. will all benefit.
I also get a kick out of the guy's asking where the access is to a slough,or trying to launch a 17'+ boat in to a 3'-4' deep pothole.
With the dry conditions water hunting is going to be tough this year,mudflats sepparating water from cattail cover are going to be a huge problem for the guys in waders,and impossible for the boat hunters trying to hunt sloughs.


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

Im hoping mallard is correct. The sloughs and small lakes should have a large mud flat arround them making large boat launching almost impossible. A very small boat could be dragged over the mud but it will be tough going. The dry spell continues and the water is drying up fast.If this continues all the small water will be gone.The small sloughs and marshes where ducks found their favored food and shelter from the elements are gone. This will speed up the migration. The game and fish people should be proactive. Get a contingency plan ready in case this drought continues.Its too late for this year but think about next season.They should bring back the temporary Rest Areas big time. Roost burning will be a very big problem this year.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Unfortunately the Mn boat parade doesn't send all the fish to SD in two weeks!!!!

Still talking apples to oranges. Im all for you to bring the boats over and hunt the sloughs with them....I would think that it's a great idea to hunt the water with boat and a good dog. Just son't put that spread on the roost where the ducks and geese have spent the night and where 2-4 parties are in the fields waiting for them to arrive to feed. Every year this happens more and more frequently and we spend more time listening to the blackbirds after some yahoo decoyed the birds on a large lake.

I agree with OH. If the rains fail to materialize there will more roost busting that ever before.....the ONLY water will the large sloughs and lakes and they'll be hunted EVERY day as it will be the only water.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Bert.....how many of those thousands of ND boaters fish private water???Plus no matter how many fisherman there are over there.....the fish don't fly to another lake or another state.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Ken,

How much of the private land in Nodak that the thousands of NRs hunt which bothers you so much do you actually OWN? Just because the throngs of Nodakers who come here to fish and jetski and whatever are on public property doesnt make them any less of a pain in the rump.

Just because it is private land doesnt give you any more right to it than an NR in my book.

The fishing pressure that we get from NRs is only part of the equation.
The other parts include jet skis and other water toys (seen more this year than I ever have and the fishing has sucked).
Another is the road traffic, congestion at gas stations etc... and, like I said before about the trickle down theory, higher prices and higher taxes.

When there is a big demand for property, values go up. That does one no good however unless one is willing to sell.

Lakes over here are public and the useage is out of my hands.

The property in NoDak that you guys want to yourselves doesn't even belong to you. Less than public if you will.

If the guy who owns private land wants me to come out there, who are you to say no?

If you own land and dont want NRs hunting it, post it as such and that is that.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> The other parts include jet skis and other water toys (seen more this year than I ever have and the fishing has sucked).


So you have anecdotal evidence that the fishing is bad due to all the jet skis and water toys?????? Come on Bert you know there is no cause and effect proved in that theory. That would be like me saying that if I miss my deer with a bow this year it is due to all the hot weather. Sure they happened in the same year but that doesn't mean one caused the other to happen.
I can certainly understand where fishing might be less enjoyable while being buzzed by jetskis and you might need to eget away from them while fishing but they certainly don't cause the fish to go south to Iowa!!!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Huge difference between private and public land.Is there any lake in Minn. you can lease up or ask permission to use and have it by yourself???

I believe over 90% of ND is private.....and almost every lake in Minn is public.....and as I said,the fish can't leave the lake no matter how many fishermen there are.

That is why in the not to distant future upon retirement,I will probably be doing more fall fishing than hunting.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

So Bert. Do we just open up the doors and allow everyone and anyone to come to ND to hunt? Just curious on your thoughts about that?

In my experience, the only gas pumps that sit congested is the one at Walmart outside of Detroit Lakes, but then again everyone wants gas for 12 cents lower than Fargo prices. I will take that anyday.


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

Fishing
Old stats Mn 2002 Res 1,000,082

Total NRS 267,193
50,435 Iowa
45,092 Wis.
37,958 Ill.
26,600 ND

ND Res 130,053

NR total 40,177
MN 10,850
Wis ?


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

To quote djleye....."Can't we all just get along?" :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

Bert...that bad experience fishing (due to pressure, as you say) is what we are trying to avoid. Sounds like you don't like the perssure, well niether do we.

We are still comparing apples to oranges right now!
No matter how hard they try the fish CAN"T leave the water and go south.



> When you guys make the journey to lakey Mn, the prices on gas and groceries and beer and lumber and everything else goes up and the locals have to pay it too.


Same goes for ND.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Fish can leave the water and go west however. Seasonal people or tourists tend to keep fish for the frying pan. That, and you can take you statistics (or lack of them) and shove them. I can tell you that having jetskis and speed boats zooming above walleyes for 8 hours a day will shut them off. Ive seen twice as many motor toys this summer and caught half the fish I normally do. If you were me, what would you surmise?

By the way, if you dont get a deer with your bow this year, it could very well have somthing to do with the weather. Real hot and real dry can make them nocturnal and keep them near water that you may not be able to hunt.

Hunting pressure will move birds around but weather is what moves them out therefore, how is it different than what happens to fish that get harassed?

Sure you can't lease a lake and you can lease land. So what is your point? It is still not your land but since the lake is public, it is partly my lake. I should have as much say as anyone regarding what goes on on public water but you guys have no business whining about what a private landowner does with his and sticking it to non residents as a means to create that end is dirty.

My whole thing here is that you guys are griping about loss of access to land that DOESN'T belong to you and you arent willing to buy it or lease it yourselves so who gets screwed? NRs of course. The birds dont belong to you either as they are migratory. The Federal land out there doesnt belong soley to you either as me and every other tax payer and duck stamp buyer paid for it too. Same goes for CRP on private lands.

The reason I brought up the pressure on the lakes over here (not just fishing ... how would you like somebody running a chainsaw 300 feet from your house every day and more on weekends?(Jet skis) is to point out that your "boat parade" pales in comparison to the one we get. And even though you grouse about the cammo ones headed west, many of you are probably pulling the ones headed east.

We are never going to agree on this because you haven't walked a mile in my Nikes and I WONT walk in yours because if I lived in NoDak, I would own my own land out there.

Now on the other hand for those of you saying "Bert, you are bearing the same cross we are" I say "bingo"! I dont go to Nodak to hunt anymore. Havent for what? 5 years now? You are more than welcome to sever your ties over here and stay on your side of the river as far as I am concerened. If it worked both ways Id feel different but it doesnt.


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

Bert
You are right we do not own the ducks, but ND has raised most of the ducks in central flyway the last few years.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> To quote djleye....."Can't we all just get along?"


Not until we blame this whole mess on the outfitters, then we will have gone full circle again :huh:


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> Fish can leave the water and go west however. Seasonal people or tourists tend to keep fish for the frying pan


Yes but they can't move from that body of water to another body of water due to pressure. They are a legal limit. Not a migrating fish! Which is what you are comparing! Apples to oranges! We are not complaining about people harvesting birds and taking them home to the frying pan we are talking about a population all out leaving the state.



> If you were me, what would you surmise?


Fish a different part of the lake. Fish earlier, fish later!
You can't due that with birds however! They leave the AREA all togethor!



> By the way, if you dont get a deer with your bow this year, it could very well have somthing to do with the weather. Real hot and real dry can make them nocturnal and keep them near water that you may not be able to hunt.


 Sorry but BS! You are not putting enough time into it then.



> Hunting pressure will move birds around but weather is what moves them out therefore, how is it different than what happens to fish that get harassed?


I think you really know the answer to that! I f not ignorance is bliss.



> Sure you can't lease a lake and you can lease land. So what is your point?


LOSS OF ACCESS FOR EVERYONE. YOU AND I BOTH!


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> By the way, if you dont get a deer with your bow this year, it could very well have somthing to do with the weather. Real hot and real dry can make them nocturnal and keep them near water that you may not be able to hunt.


You are absolutely right......It MIGHT BE due to the heat or it might be that I didn't work hard enough, or I didn't hunt when the conditions were right, or I am just not a good shot. The point being Bert we don't know for sure what the problem was, but it could have been the warm weather.

If you are talking about too damn many fish leaving your lake for the frying pan, that is a whole 'nother story. If the limits are too liberal (probably are) then by all means do what you need to do to change that. No one would be upset about that. doing what is best for the resource is indeed a noble thing to do. ( I personally think it would be good to lower the limit for fish and fowl, even pheasants). I would have no problem with a lower possesion and daily limit for ducks and leg tags. That would solve a lot of our problems!!


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> but they certainly don't cause the fish to go south to Iowa!!!


That's wrong.............. heavy surface traffic and noise will put fish off the bite and deeper faster than a weather change in any state. For that reason the old timers and retired old farts like myself do our fishing during the week days or at night when the waters are calmer and the fish come out to feed in their natural pattern when there is less chance of them being disturbed.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

I fish only during the week. I have that luxury. Paid through the nose for that luxury. In the past, I have had good luck. As of late, I am dodging jerk skis at 6:00 on a Wednesday afternoon.

We could argue who is getting screwed til the cows come home. The thing is you are arguing about land you don't own and I am arguing about land I not only have a monetary interest in but LIVE ON!

If you dont think I would like to turn the hands of time back several decades and have the same fishing that was here and hunting that was here and hunting that was there, you are nuts. All I am saying is that not only are you only going to see things get worse due to population growth, climate wierdness and money talking but you are way outta line when you start bi+ching because you arent getting the access to the land which you arent willing to pay for.

I often wonder what the majority of the landowners out there (farmers) think of your tirades in an effort to claim their land which they paid for and pay taxes on as your own. Certainly, the local kid from Velva or Cooperstown or whereever, they probably have a soft spot for and rightfully so. But Id bet you dollars to donuts that who is driving the anti NR bus out there is largely those of you from the cities. All I have to do is look at the location on your posts and do the math.

I dont want to see "Katie bar the door" development here (believe me I have more at stake than you do when it comes to that) but you know what? Its gonna happen. I have to accept that. Dont get me going on what it has cost me to see that it is done right but suffice it to say that I have worked towards having it done within the law. Not change the laws...just see that it is done within the law.

Say what you want, but I am doing my part for you by staying home. That being said, when you basically flip me the bird by going on about NR pressure and the "boat parade" and basically blame every one of your problems (including GOs leasing land) on NRs (which doesnt include guys lke me who have always done things the "right way") Im going to holler from over here.

Honestly, I am someone you would rather have in your tent peeing out than outside of your tent peeing in.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

If this passion could be brought to the respective legislatures, both sides could be better off. The boys in MN had a chance last session to pass a small tax increase to impove their outdoors and they sat on their thumbs instead of their legislators. They had a very good chance to outlaw canned hunts in MN but the MN Deer Hunters Asc. couldn't do it alone so it flopped. Thought somebody else would carry the load. Nobody else did.

We here in ND did exactly the same thing in '01, 03, and '05. "07 session is coming up.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Another 6500 acres south of Mandan will most likely be sold to a Texan. This particular rancher has had with the extreme ups and downs in this region and is looking to sell to the highest $. Unfortunately it appears to be a Texan, and guess what his intentions are for the property?
Thats right, HUNTING!

Another huge tract of land with highly limited access.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

I could give a rats a$$ about canned hunts. If some idiot wants to pay to go whack a critter in a pen, he is no different that the guy who has to buy sex. Loser, but no skin off my back. I am married (to a hot redhead)(woman...not a duck) and I own my own hunting land. Did it all on my own and I am nothing special.

He isnt hunting public land or private land...just paying to kill something that isnt human. It doesnt bother me when the guy puts a post in a steer's head down at the locker plant. I wouldnt call it hunting but you are idealistic at best if you think you have a shot at changing the anti's position by nomenclature.

You hit the nail on the head in bringing up what Mn legislators will and won't take an interest in. It however is not for lack of input from sportsmen over here, it has everything to do with the pressure from other sources which you do not have in North Dakota. Believe or not, there are a hell of a lot more people over here for them to listen to than what you have in NoDak. What we have in sportsmen who show up at the capitol or write there concerns to the Govt. probably doubles what you have for a hunting population.

Minnesota Deer Hunters assn? What a joke. Habitat? Thats what they are about...that and cow-towing to the guys who think a rack means success. Cripes there are deer in the suburbs and golf courses. Minnesota needs more money for deer habitat like we neen more NR fishermen. Each year we get a warmer winter and the deer breed like cats. I can shoot 5 deer a year here. For my 6 man party that = 30 deer. Who in the heck needs or wants 30 deer for 6 guys? The MDHA would have you believe that the population boom has something to do with them. (not unlike some of you guys and the ducks out there). 
They also say that they are about defending our right to hunt deer. Heck, they pay guys to shoot deer over here because of the damage they do to vehicles and shrubbery.

Bottom line is that Ma Nature rules all and you and I are just along for the ride. (you are gonna find that out if the drought keeps its course just as I predicted).

I have always struggled with the MDHA. They raise money to buy land and then the Grand Puba's hunt it for a couple of years and then on to the next. I wouldnt give any money to them any sooner than I would give it to Ducks Are Limited.

Delta Waterfowl? Maybe.

What I can do as an individual with my own money? Dam straight!

I can see where that goes...and...the ducks I raise? Well, they fly south too so quit with the ownership crap. Hunting pressure? If it is 70 degrees and the ducks get popped at they will just as soon fly north to get away from it as south. I read an article in an old (50's mag) where the ducks got pushed south through Iowa by a blizzard and then it got warm and they moved back north and the boys had a heckuva shoot.

North Dakota raises the ducks...yeah right. Some farmer out there who doesnt drain his sloughs raises the ducks, not you. Again, if you dont own the land...shut up. (Apologies to anyone here who owns wetlands and raises ducks...raise your hands)

You guys could too. You are no different than me. Most of you are college educated, have jobs, make money. Hey, sell the cabin in Mn and buy some land in Nodak. If you dont have land to hunt out there, it is your own fault. You just arent willing to sacrifice and buy it. If I can do it here, believe me, you can do it there.

Dont get me wrong, I'd love it if we could all live in town, ma didnt have to work, the kids all got A's, gas was 19 cents a gallon and there were so few of us humans that the wide open was free for the taking. Well, it aint anymore.

You guys are kind of the last bastian. Blessed with what will soon be Minnesota or New Jersey. I feel for you but you need to face those facts and if you are smart, you will get while the gettin is good otherwise, that land will fall to the hands of those who care less about critters than they do about the almighty dollar. That is what is happening here and there aint enough money on Gods green earth to protect it from those bastards. You and I both know which is more important. You should put your money where your mouths are and pool your resources to protect what you feel is right. If all you do is tickle the Govt. into a bandaid fix, they will let you down sooner or later. Mark my words.

If the skies would be black with ducks forever, I would be happy to throw my guns in the burn pile. I dont have to shoot them anymore, I just like to watch them fly. Can you understand that I am not some invader that wants to come and shoot your roosts and bloody your fields? Love to eat them but really love to watch them fly. Thats all I was really going over there for was to watch them fly because I cant do it over here anymore.

The problem is that you guys and I are the minority. 
Suffice it to say though, that you have a bigger voice due to a smaller population, so saying "well Mn sportsmen should do this and that (regarding government influence) because we did" it is unfair.

You make it sound like all of you NR hating, otherman's land hunting, good ol boys from Fargo could come over here to Mn and turn it into NoDak in a couple of years. Give me a break!


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> You make it sound like all of you NR hating, otherman's land hunting, good ol boys from Fargo could come over here to Mn and turn it into NoDak in a couple of years. Give me a break!


Or maybe we are giving you constructive criticism, or advice on how to go about it. Seeing as your state hasn't yet!


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> You guys are kind of the last bastian


Exactly Bert....and we are trying to keep it that way. Sure we could go out and buy land. Certainly we could get groups together and have the resources to form our own hunting clubs. But.......we are trying to save hunting for EVERYONE. We don't just want our piece of the pie, we want everyone to have a chance to savor the flavor. I cannot, in good conscience, look at my son in 15 years when he turns 21 and say, "You know what, the hunting used to be for everyone, but I only wanted what was best for me, so I didn't try my hardest to preserve it for everyone". I know that it is an uphill battle and I don't know if he will ever know the hunting I did, but if I don't at least try, I would be ashamed of myself. You see Bert, we are looking out for all in our efforts here, contrary to some beliefs. I know that you have struggled with your fights on your home waters developments. You also need to see that we are not anti NR and we are not anti-Bert. We are merely pro hunting!!!!


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

AMEN DAN!!!!!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Exactly Bert....and we are trying to keep it that way. Sure we could go out and buy land. Certainly we could get groups together and have the resources to form our own hunting clubs. But.......we are trying to save hunting for EVERYONE.


At whose expense??? The farmers, I think you are asking quite a bit.



> You see Bert, we are looking out for all in our efforts here, contrary to some beliefs.


Ya right,donating money to a wildlife group is not going to save hunting.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> Ya right,donating money to a wildlife group is not going to save hunting.


If you think that is all I do, then you are sadly mistaken!!!! :eyeroll:


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> Ya right,donating money to a wildlife group is not going to save hunting.


and selling it's resources is?


----------



## Miller (Mar 2, 2002)

g/o said:


> > Exactly Bert....and we are trying to keep it that way. Sure we could go out and buy land. Certainly we could get groups together and have the resources to form our own hunting clubs. But.......we are trying to save hunting for EVERYONE.
> 
> 
> At whose expense??? The farmers, I think you are asking quite a bit.


Would you like to pay for my bad year on the job with subsidies that YOU pay in taxes? I take a risk on the job without a safety net, and starting a hunting preserve isn't one of my options either.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> If you think that is all I do, then you are sadly mistaken!!!!


What???? Care to elaborate,



> and selling it's resources is?


Again I never sold any wildlife, I have however sold resources in the tune of gravel. I wish I had some oil to sell.

djleye, I hope you do more than just donate, if you do I will hold you a little higher than just another "slbck". There are many things that should be done to ensure hunting for the future, banning non residents is not one of them. I know you don't want to ban them only limit, same as me selling wildlife you know as well as anyone I do not do that. If want make sure djleye jr has good hunting the most important is to try and save CRP. Listen to some of us evil outfitters and farmers that may have some good ideas. Then we will all need to lobby hard in DC when the new farm bill comes to play next year. Anytime you want to talk positive I'll listen. You want to continue throwing rocks? Hell that's fine with me I like throwing them back.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> Again I never sold any wildlife, I have however sold resources in the tune of gravel. I wish I had some oil to sell.


But you are selling the opportunity to the resources. Ex. Wildlife.
Don't get me wrong here G/O. I really do respect some aspect of your business, and wish more would follow in your foot steps. Ex. the area of land you have marked for Youth hunters accompamnied by an adult. Get some of your buddy's (evil outfitter) to follow suit and there's a start to saving hunting. But that comes from you, because they won't listen to me or anyone here that's not an OF.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> But you are selling the opportunity to the resources


Congratulations selling an opportunity is much different then selling wildlife. As i said in another post I sell lodging, with that you have the opportunity to hunt my land. Same as a motel with a pool or a resort with a golf course.



> Get some of your buddy's (evil outfitter) to follow suit and there's a start to saving hunting


This is a two way street, yes we all need to work together not just the outfitters. There is much you can do also.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> Congratulations selling an opportunity is much different then selling wildlife. As i said in another post I sell lodging, with that you have the opportunity to hunt my land. Same as a motel with a pool or a resort with a golf course.


They go hand in hand. If you didn't have any wildlife on your land would people come to your land just to hang out. The answer is NO! I am sorry but you can't really think people will come just to hang out!



> This is a two way street, yes we all need to work together not just the outfitters. There is much you can do also.


If the idea came from me or anyone else it will be shot down like greenhead on the deck! I am not saying that the work is ALL up to you, but you can influence the outfitting world more than I can! In part, we are trying to help in other aspects. Ex. Organizations that put money twords the resources. That is where we help in numbers not individually!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> They go hand in hand. If you didn't have any wildlife on your land would people come to your land just to hang out. The answer is NO! I am sorry but you can't really think people will come just to hang out!


Again from another post, if I as a farmer spend lot of my own money to enhance wildlife, should I be not entitled to do so. If my neighbor does nothing yet because he benefits from my programs, and has his land open to public hunting he is a great guy in your books. I'm an a$$hole because I charge, yet I'm the one who is doing something. I just can't see your logic Mav.



> If the idea came from me or anyone else it will be shot down like greenhead on the deck!


Why? If you have a good idea for something why wouldn't it be accepted?



> Organizations that put money towards the resources. That is where we help in numbers not individually!


Again the problem today is people find much to easy to write a check. Lets see I'll write a check to Delta now I've done my share. Yes the money helps but you still need volunteers to do things and that is where the problem is in every organization. You always have a couple doing all the work. ( I used Delta as an example only before the boys from Delta start jumping on me)


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> You always have a couple doing all the work.


Well, I guess hell must have frozen over because you and I agree on this...........BIG TIME!!!!!!


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> Again from another post, if I as a farmer spend lot of my own money to enhance wildlife, should I be not entitled to do so. If my neighbor does nothing yet because he benefits from my programs, and has his land open to public hunting he is a great guy in your books. I'm an a$$hole because I charge, yet I'm the one who is doing something. I just can't see your logic Mav.


Where did I say that you weren't entitled to? Where did I say you were an a$$hole. Your case is kind of different than other's. You are the only one in the state , that I know of that is this way! Most would lease the neighbor land as well, and their neighbor land and so forth. Making access harder and harder. Which is what is happening.



> Why? If you have a good idea for something why wouldn't it be accepted?


 Your not getting my point here. You being in the industry do have more persuasive powers than I as so called SLBCK.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Well, I guess hell must have frozen over because you and I agree on this...........BIG TIME!!!!!!


"damn I hate that when it happens"

Mav, No you have never called me any names that I know of. Your right I have more pull than you but ask yourself this question. Why should outfitters go along with anything you say? In the end will it make a difference? Most here despise outfitters and what they do and always will, so why should they cooperate? Can we work together on somethings? I'd like to think so. Time will tell.


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

Don't know about the numbers and not going to get into a peeing match, nor will I judge NR who buy land here for hunting. I will report the following facts.

I have some rather well heeled friends from MN who come over to hunt every year. Last year, they bought a full section of pasture that is primarily slough in Nelson County, solely for hunting.

Yesterday they were in state and stopped by my farmstead. They advised they just purchased the farmstead and land adjoining their hunting land, so as to have a place to stay the couple weeks they are up here in Oct. They were going over to move furniture in.

Purely a guess but I think this is happening more & more in this area...


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

NDT, it is as you say. Any farm-ad publication that advertises real estate targets land as "hunting opportunities", ( I wish they would use a different 5 point buck in each picture, he's getting old). Adams County, the heaviest hunted for pheasants is 33% NR owned. If a dollar of new revenue increases 7 times in a community, would not the reverse be true, as rent and appreciation values are transfered out-of-state? Interesting how the positive is highlighted and the negative is locked in the closet.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Adams County, the heaviest hunted for pheasants is 33% NR owned.


HoHummmmmmmmmmm Dick how much of that 33% was bought just for hunting?????? How much is owned by people who live out of state that inherited the or are ranchers in neighboring states. Again nice try Dick :eyeroll:


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Some on here know there stuff and then there are some that THINK they know their stuff. g/o, you fall in the latter.


----------



## Cinder (Sep 2, 2003)

I think Dick and G/O both make valid points. The fact that 33% of Adams County though does lead me to think about the Federal Govt Farm program. I have always felt the farm program only benefits the land owner, because if the renter (ie family farmer) makes money off the farm program then the next year the rent goes up and so do land values.

I don't see how you can have a subsidized farm program that does not end up driving the cost of land up. I am not sure how this relates to hunting, but I do think the farm program is a waste of money and ends up driving up the cost of land.

Also, I think G/O would have less clients if they were not allowed to write the cost of the trip off as business entertainment. Why should the government pay for someone to hunt pheasants?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

4 curl, I suggest you go ewg.org and check on who gets the payments in Adams County. Damn I hate it Billy Boy when I'm right but the majority of out state landowner are from Lemmon,SD. Geez didn't I say something about counties on borders that landowners are from each side. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> Also, I think G/O would have less clients if they were not allowed to write the cost of the trip off as business entertainment.


According to the Cannonball Co. interview in the Fargo Forum most (90%)of their clients are NR corporations.

g/o if you loaded your gun before you pulled the trigger you would realize that EWG cannot determine NR ownership under a cash rent arraingement. The Sportsman's Alliance went through EWG years ago.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Dick, likewise if you loaded your gun before you pulled the trigger you would also realize that clients, are not the landowners. 100% of my clients are from out of state big deal. Yes you are correct ewg will not show cash rent. I did however check the conservation payments and found the same thing there, there was some people from Valley City that owned land there also.


----------



## HCGC (Aug 7, 2006)

I AM A NEW MEMBER TO THIS SITE. I AM FROM WISCONSIN. IT WAS PRETTY INTERESTING READING ALL OF THE COMMOTION ABOUT HOW MUCH SOME OF YOU HATE NR'S. YOU DO MAKE VALID POINTS, AND I SEE WHY YOUR COMPLANING BUT WOULD LIKE TO SAY THIS.

I THINK THAT YOU ARE VERY GREEDY. ISNT THIS THE LAND OF THE FREE. HOW CAN YOU REALLY THINK YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTROL NR'S FROM BUYING LAND OR MIGRATING TO NORTH DAKOTA JUST FOR THE HUNTING. WOULD YOU RATHER US START DEVELOPING THE LAND HOW ABOUT SOME NICE SKY SCRAPERS RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF PRIME HUNTING LAND. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE IF A NR OWNS LAND COMPARED TO A RESIDENT. LETS SAY A FARMER OWNS 10,000 ACERS AND SELLS 500 TO ME, WOULDNT I HAVE TO PAY THE SAME TAXES EVERY YEAR ON THAT PROPERTY AS THE FARMER WOULD HAVE, EXCEPT WAIT A MINUTE I TRAVEL HERE EVERY YEAR AND SPEND MONEY. BY HAVING THAT FARMER OWN THAT EXTRA 500 ACERS YOU JUST LOST OUT ON THE MONEY I WOULD HAVE SPENT.

I AM ONLY 22 YEARS OLD. I FIRST STARTED HUNTING AT 12, AT THE AGE OF 14 MY DAD TOOK ME TO THE UNDERWOOD AREA, WE HAVE BEEN GOING BACK EVERY YEAR SINCE. WE SPEND ANNUALY AROUND 500 TO 1000 DOLLARS IN NORTH DAKOTA AND IM SURE WE ARE NOT THE ONLY ONES. YOUR STATE IS LOOKING FOR COMMERCE AND HAS ONLY 1 REAL WAY TO DO IT BESIDES FARMING, AND THATS NR HUNTERS SPENDING THEIR CASH WETHER ITS BUYING GAS,FOOD,BEER,POP,HOTEL,SHELLS,LICENSES, OR PAYING TAXES.

IF YOU LOSE US NR HUNTERS, WHICH YOU NEVER WILL, YOU WOULD LOOSE LOTS OF REVENUE EACH YEAR


----------



## KYUSS (Aug 27, 2005)

HCGC, go ahead and buy 500 acers of prime hunting land. Thats your right. I'm sure you would not mind if my son and I came out to your 500 acers to do some hunting then?

I dont care if we lose any NR's or not. If this drought goes on for a few more years and the duck limit gets dropped to three a day like it was during the last drought the NR's numbers will go down as well which brings me to my next point. During the drought of the late 80's and early 90's the small town cafe's, bars, gas stations, and hotals did not have that vital NR money that you speak of because most of the NR's stayed home and all those buisness's made it just fine.

I live in small town NoDak and some of my good friends are buisness owners ( cafe, hotal, gas station ) and I have asked them about this NR money and the response is the same from all of them. Extra money is always nice but it would never make or break them as some NR's think.

We as residents of N.D. want to keep as much land as possible open to hunting. Open to R's and NR's. When NR's come into N.D. and buy up land the next thing alot of them do when they leave the bank is post up *their* new hunting land.

So tell me guy, are we really greedy because we want to ensure more open hunting area for you and me? Or is it that the greedy one's are coming into North Dakota and buying up hunting land for themselves and leaving the blue collar hunter with less and less opportunities.

Welcome to the site :beer:


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

HCGC: Welcome to site. One of the very things many of us are trying to do is keep NR's from purchasing land. That 500 acres is or could be extremely important to that farmer. ND is an agricultural state. We want to keep it that way. I would much rather make sure a 24 year old farmer keeps farming that land and have the opportunity for both you and I to hunt the land rather than one person out of state controlling that land and possibly take productive ag land away from our farmers.

I hunt Underwood too, but you come out and spend $1,000 for one trip. I make 4-8 trips down there per year and have the same expenses you do (with the exception of the lisence fee). The fact is, resident sportmen/women spend more money in the small towns than NR's do.

It isn't about us being greedy. It is about us living here year round. We obviously aren't doing it for the -25 degree January day or the huge salaries ND is known for :wink: . Many live here because of the hunting.

My question to you is. We live here 365 days a year. We have chosen lower salaries and inclimate weather to have the ability to hunt and fish like it should be done. Why should you have the same privileges as a resident sportmen/women?


----------



## Centerfire (Jan 13, 2006)

I am a non-resident landowner - However the land I own has been in my family for somewhere in the neighborhhood of 116yrs. The reason I did not stay and farm is because we could not keep up with the big farmers and had to go elsewhere to make a living. I pay property taxes and yes a gratis deer license to hunt on only my property is $225.

What I would like to know is how many of the people on this forum complaining own property. So many of you think you have the right to hunt on other peoples land and dictate how land is bought and sold without owning land or contributing land taxes.

I think alot of you are missing the point - ND needs to control the number of Hunting Guides, and the property bought for commercial game farms and hunting clubs - these are the groups buying up the hunting rights. Just as guilty is the ND Game and fish department they really like the revenue the non-resident hunters license fees produce (an non-resident license is the equivalent of 5 to 10 resident licenses) . Tell them to stop promoting so hard to non-residents. Game and Fish departments can grow out of control to the point where hunting quality suffers because they become overly dependent on outside revenue and end up having to oversell licenses to support their economic needs.

Yea it sucks to have out of staters out bid the locals for land only for hunting rights however you will never be able to stop this as it is free enterprise - so you are wasting your time on this one. You need to spend your time on things where you have an actual say - State Owned Lands, Game & Fish Dept, Plot Programs, etc..


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

Centerfire: Could you please tell us what your occupation is?


----------



## Cinder (Sep 2, 2003)

Centerfire makes some good points, but I would add that just about everything now a days comes down to politics. You can pass just about any kind of law now a days as long as you have the votes. So if you want a law changed, get active in politics.

I would ask how many that complain actually go out and support candidates that share their views. More importantly - how many run their own candidates. Farmers do it all the time - they run their own people.

Most ND Legislative districts have been gerrymandered so bad that one party will win no matter what candidate they run. So, in those districts get 100 of your friends to attend the district caucus. If you do, you will find you can swing any vote and elect any candidate you want for the nomination. I go to my district meetings and there are less than 25 people there and they nominate the State Senator and State Reps. People think they have a choice when they vote, but in most cases someone else picked the two choices you have available.

Quit complaining and get active in politics. Sending an email to a legislator is not getting active, by the way.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

CF,
Do allow anyone esle to use your 116 acres for deer hunting when you are not using it? Since you get a Gratus tag?


----------



## Centerfire (Jan 13, 2006)

I do allow old neighbors and other friends to hunt deer on the family farm - I usually get my deer the first weekend and they can use it after that. I do not post it for birds or other game.

I work in the construction


----------



## HCGC (Aug 7, 2006)

KYUSS I SEE WHAT YOU MEAN NOW, I MIGHT HAVE MISS UNDERSTOOD A LITTLE. MY FIRST YEAR TO NORTH DAKOTA THERE WAS AN ENDLESS AMOUNT OF LAND TO HUNT NOW IT IS ALL POSTED. TO MY KNOWLEGE THEY DIDNT SELL THE LAND THEY JUST POSTED IT. TRY BEING ME. I LIVE IN A SMALLER TOWN IN WISCONSIN, I WAS BORN AND RAISED HERE. I OWN A BUSINESS HERE. I CANT LEAVE. IF I BOUGHT LAND IN NORTH DAKOTA WHICH I HAVE BEEN REALLY WANTING TO DO I WOULD POST IT BUT I WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE THE NEIGHBORS OR RESIDENTS TO MAKE AN EFFORT TO CONTACT ME TO ASK PERMISSION TO HUNT. I WOULDNT MIND. I WOULD RATHER HAVE A LOCAL NEIGHBOR AS A FRIEND TO LOOK AFTER MY LAND THAN LEAVE IT OPEN GAME WITH POSTED SIGNS AND HOPE IN RETURN THAT THEY WOULD LET US HUNT ON THEIR PROPERTY.

AS NRS ISNT IT THE POLITE THING TO DO EVEN IF IT IS NOT POSTED TO GO AND ASK PERMISSION AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF. DONT TAKE THIS THE WRONG WAY BUT FROM MOST RESIDENTS I HAVE TALKED TO WETHER THEY ARE LYING OR NOT I DONT KNOW BUT THEY SAY THEY WOULD RATHER HAVE US HUNTING THEIR LAND THAN MOST LOCALS BECAUSE THE LOCALS TAKE IT FOR GRANTED AND TRASH THE LAND, AND SPOOK THE CATTLE, AND JUST THINK THEY OWN EVERYTHING.
AND THATS WHY THEY POSTED THEIR LAND. MAYBE SOME RESIDENT HUNTERS SHOULD LEARN TO BE MORE CURTIOUS AND ASK PERMISSION IT ISNT SO BAD.

EVERY DUCK HUNTERS DREAM IS TO BE IN A TORNADO OF DUCKS AND GEESE. I HAVE ONLY BEEN ABLE TO EXPERENCE IT A COUPLE OF TIMES AND I WILL CHERISH IT FOR EVER. TO BE LAYIN IN A WHEAT FIELD COVERED IN WHEAT STUBBLE AND HAVING A THOUSAND OR MORE ABOVE YOU AND MANY WITHIN A COUPLE OF FEET IS AMAZING. I LIVE NOT EVEN 1/2 OF A MILE FROM THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRAVEL TO NORTH DAKOTA EVERY YEAR TO GO DUCK HUNTING. IF I HAD THE CHOICE TO SIT IN THE MIDDLE OF A TORNADO OF DUCKS WITH OUT A GUN OR GO SIT ON A POND AND SHOOT DUCKS UP THE KAZOO I WOULD LEAVE MY GUNS AT HOME. IM NOT THERE TO KILL ALL THE DUCKS I JUST ENJOY WATCHING THEM FLY AND INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER, BUT THEY DO TASTE GREAT COOKED IN GOLDEN MUSHROOM SOUP WITH CHUNKS OF POTATOES ALL MIXED TOGETHER. HAHA :beer:


----------



## HCGC (Aug 7, 2006)

live2hunt
WHOS TO SAY ITS NOT THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE POSTING THE LAND AND LEASING OUT THE LAND TO MAKE A LITTLE EXTRA CASH. I HEAR YOUR POINT BUT I THINK THE ONLY WAY TO ENSURE THAT YOU AND I HAVE A PLACE TO HUNT IS TO GET PERMISSION AND STAY FRIENDS WITH THE LAND OWNERS, AND RESPECT THEM AND THEIR LAND.

:beer:


----------



## HCGC (Aug 7, 2006)

My question to you is. We live here 365 days a year. We have chosen lower salaries and inclimate weather to have the ability to hunt and fish like it should be done. Why should you have the same privileges as a resident sportmen/women?

BECAUSE YOU DONT OWN THE ANIMALS, NOBODY DOES!


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

???????


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

I have stayed out of this fray mainly because much of the stuff is retreaded from other threads. But two very important points have come of this thread and a few others worth noting.

Dick makes a valid point about the increased NR ownership. I do know that a good amount of land in Lamoure and Logan counties have been bought for hunting purposes. It remain taxed as Ag land because the owners lease out pasture or farm land taking the cash rent out of state and only spending a few days or a couple weeks here. Some of those sites have become a boarding house also with the money leaving the state, and no controls on lodging or health issues.

In talking with people from the New Rockford area this past summer, the also totaled up to 10,000+ acres in Foster and Eddy counties! Now how do we solve the classification issue without penalizing people who inherit land that they very well helped pay for growing up on those farms?

I liked the idea that G/O brought forward on high fence operations, but should not any type of game farm be subject to that also? To me the problem with that comes on what we classify as Ag operations! We have people who raise pheasants that supply game farms and also sell birds for release into the wild. They are operating much like a chicken rancher does! So simply classify the fowl or animal raised will not do so! Just like a rancher who raises buffalo, or elk! Even though they are wild animals, some of them are selling their animals to packers that supply restaurants across the nation with the meat. No different than raising Angus beef cattle.

G/O and Dick and the rest of us should be looking at ideas to help the situation not continue the fight that divides us every year. G/O suffers from the NR landowner renting out his house without any state supervision. Dick looses when land prices and cash rent get pushed up by non Ag interests and they are not all out of state! Hunters suffer as more land goes into recreational ownership and in Eddy county some of those NR lease out the land to G/O for use when they are not here!

I have for the most part believed that Mom and Pop operations that run a bread and breakfast and also provide hunting access do not hurt hunters and many times increase the wildlife in and around the areas if they manage them for wildlife.

It is operations that are running from New Rockford to Gackle that are hurting the sportsmen that hunt in this state regardless if they are Res or NR hunters!

So what should come of this thread is a list of changes that can seek to reclassify land if it is bought as a recreational investment even if it remains in Ag production.

We need to come up with an idea that will allow true Ag operations to continue even with non traditional livestock and poultry under Ag guidelines, but also reclassify operations geared towards game farms and high fence shooting parks!

It should be an easy sell at the Legislature, because it will increase tax collections at the county and township levels! Especially for road maintenance and and school funding! Education funding is a hot topic this year, even more than it has been in the past because of the increased revenue that has come into the state coffers with sales tax and oil tax! I can see a golden opportunity to keep local taxes overall from going up and tax recreation lands as they should be and as they are in many other states!
I also encourage everyone to stop responding to people like Bert who are simply stirring the pot!

Those of us who live here understand the issues of the boat parade and how roost busting messes up hunting for everyone, not just the locals or Res hunters. This year will be interesting because we know what has happened to the wetlands!

ND has had good news this past week, the MN lawsuit was dismissed, and much needed rain has fallen in some parts of the state lowering fire danger issues for the time being. But the Jan legislative session is not that far away and it is time again to think about solutions that we can get done and not wage the Res/ NR battles on the Internet. Instead get involved and make yourself known to your elected official or those that are running. Because if they remember you come Jan they will listen to that voice and its concerns much more if they know the name and the face!!!!!!!!

In closing our current law will continue to make ND land attractive to NR buyers unless change is made that will not negatively affect those who stand to inherit land from family!

Let's all try and come up with ideas instead of barbs at each other!!!!!


----------



## NDTracer (Dec 15, 2005)

Ron good points. Would a new classification work and be enforcable? MN and maybe other states offer a homestead tax break. Meaning the living quarters property is taxed at a lower amount than the recreation area. If they can get it so could we. Now as far as the inherited land why not have a grandfather clause in it. Where it states that any land bought for recreation purposes (even if rented for Ag) will be taxed as recreation land, this would then take affect for any land sales after a set year (2010, 2015 ect). If the land is passed down through an inheritance then the "sale" would just be a deed transfer so the purchase would be dated back before the set year. I think this would work. Now for the existing G/O it wouldn't affect them for their existing lands but would for the future purchases. This may increase leasing by G/O from farmers but that is the choice of both and the state would still receive higher taxes if it is an out of state owner leasing. If it is in state it may be less taxes but then the lease money paid by the G/O still stays locally to help ND economy.

OK there is my idea, I am sure there are alot of flaws but lets see if we can work out some sort of idea that the R and NR all think would work. Then we could show it to our elected officials and maybe do something about this. I think forums like this are great as we can get both sides with input on it.


----------



## hydro870 (Mar 29, 2005)

> I think alot of you are missing the point - ND needs to control the number of Hunting Guides, and the property bought for commercial game farms and hunting clubs - these are the groups buying up the hunting rights.


Without question, the most intelligent post I have ever read on this website! Excellent.

Hydro.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

hydro870 said:


> > I think alot of you are missing the point - ND needs to control the number of Hunting Guides, and the property bought for commercial game farms and hunting clubs - these are the groups buying up the hunting rights.
> 
> 
> Without question, the most intelligent post I have ever read on this website! Excellent.
> ...


Hydro, If this is so intelligent as you say, please inform me on how the hell you would ever stop someone from buying land? This is the stupidest post I've ever read


----------



## Cinder (Sep 2, 2003)

g/o -- Just when I thought you were making sense you insult someone that disagrees with you. The posts by Ron Gilmore are the most civil and well thought out, by far, of the posts on this site.

As to your specific point about how you restrict someone from buying land, I would just say it is done all the time: (1) Minnesota gives a homestead credit. (2) Look at Ottertail county in MN, something like half their budget comes from non-residents of the county. A farmer calls his home on the lake ag and is taxed less, even though he has jet skis, lake shore etc, than the guy from Minneapolis (who does not vote in Ottertail County. (3) ND has laws that affect corporate farming and Conservation groups from buying land. (4) I think even the Game and Fish runs into trouble when they want to buy land.

As a I said earlier, the ND Legislature is run, to a large extent, by legislators that will get elected no matter what they do. I say that because most districts are gerrymandered so that one party always wins regardless of their candidate. And most districts have less than 100 people at their nominating conventions. So, how do you restrict who can buy land, very easy, just have 100 sportsmen in each district attend the nominating convention.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Don't we have county commissioners who can keep someone from buying land?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

What Dick originally said holds merit to his belief that being the money going out of the state. Problem is how much of the land in this state owned by non residents for hunting? I say very little, all one has to do is visit these counties and find out. The majority is probably owned by people who have inherited land or are living in a bordering state and it is used for ag purposes.

You want to do something find away to tax this land as commercial or a recreation rate. Dick and I disagree on the way this should be done. Dick is in favour of a one time tax. I disagree it should be done yearly because things can change. As I stated before what if down the line I or someone else would decide to put up a high fence operation?

Those of you that have such hardons for outfitters leasing land I suggest you try this. Farmers such as myself have land we own and lease for ag purposes. If I brought you my FSA unit it will show you what land descriptions they are. Currently these are exempt and it should stay that way. Any leased land must be included in our guides license, if its leased then tax it commercial. This is the only chance you have.

Now as long as you want to tax land for recreation make sure that you nail the residents also. There should be no difference for resident investors or non resident.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Don't we have county commissioners who can keep someone from buying land?


How could that possibly be constitutional??


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I have stated this time and time again.....
I would bet most land that is bought by NR is for INVESTMENT purposes. Yes some use this investment as rec. land. But that is just a bonus. When the stock market went down people started to look else where....LAND!

Here is an example.....A person from MN took money he made in stocks and bought 100 acres of land in MN in the early 90's (as an investment, tax exchange). He bought this land for $1000 an acre. Now in 2004 he sold the land for $2500 an acre. He needs to do another tax exchange. He can either buy land in MN for $2500 an acres or go to ND where he can buy land for $500 per acre. So he buys that land in ND (500 acres).

Now the land in Mn he was getting $90 per acre rent for his contract. That is a 9% return. If he would have re-invested in land in MN rent would have increased to $110 per acre....but with the purchase of the new land the return would have been 4.5% return.

Now this New land in ND he will be getting $50 rent. That is a 10% return.

You see the price per acre is what is dictating the NR land sales. Yes I know some are buying it for rec use. But if you look deeper. The majority is owned by investors.

Because when Neighboring states land values rise and one states stays the same or lower. People with purchase land in that neighboring state. Look at parts of MO. Two years ago land prices where $450 per acre. This past year....$1500. I talked with a farmer and then a real estate agent.....They both told me "Big Wigs" for IL and IA were buying the land. Land in both of those states were going for $2000 to $5000 per acre. It is just a sound investment.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Chuck, You are exactly right, these people are rich not STUPID. We can put a tax on investors and recreation and they will pay it and never blink an eye. Just make sure we nail the resident investor also.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I have a question.....

Is there a tax difference from a Homestead and a Non-Homestead.

Example: A person lives, works, and owns a $100,000 home in Fargo. This same person owns a $100,000 home in Devils Lake. His permanant address is Fargo. Does the home in DL get taxed different than the home in Fargo? 
(to make this work correct....the homes are identical in every way.)


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

I don't think taxing investors is the answer. It is not a very sound economic policy.

Why do you want to slow the amount of capital flowing into the state?

I've read a number of policy reports and studies that show that restricting the movement of capital (through legislative restrictions) has very bad long term economic effects on the areas bound by these laws.

Take for example some cooperative ag projects. They often have difficult time raising capital, not because the economics are poor, but they cannot find a large enough pool of investors to get things started on a large enough scale to make things profitable. This could often be overcome if outside investors were allowed to participate. However, anti-corporate laws often reduce the potential pool of investors.

This creates an environment that is anti-business.



> We can put a tax on investors and recreation and they will pay it and never blink an eye.


That depends on the level of the tax, the current interest rates, and the prevailing business environment. There is some level of taxation that will reduce investment.

I used to be against outside investors buying land for recreation and closing it off to hunting but I have changed my mind. If the land stays in CRP and the wetlands aren't drained then that is a victory for the outdoors in my mind. Public funding is simply not going to be there to fund wildlife.

Take for example MN. The only way they are ever going to see more ducks in their skies is if private individuals purchase land and plug drain tiles. They will never be able to get public dollars earmarked for wildlife by taking ag land out of production. Only private citizens will be able to do that.


----------



## Cinder (Sep 2, 2003)

Question: Do you think the price of land and it's attractiveness as an investment is related to the Farm Subsidy programs? I personally think it is one of the major drivers, but I would interested to hear what others think.

I am also puzzled that land seems to be a good investment yet farming does not seem as profitable.

Thanks.

P.S. Just as an aside. I was in Milbank, SD today and was told by locals that investors in the ethanol plant at Big Stone have received their original investment back the first year. Also, shares that cost $20,000 are now selling for $250,000. (I missed that boat too!)


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> Quote:
> Don't we have county commissioners who can keep someone from buying land?
> 
> How could that possibly be constitutional??


Constitutional law is not high priority when you crawl out of the pumkin patch to write it.

I think you have to revisit the "inflow of capitol arguement" as always a benifit. Third world countries are being strip mined to the rocks by the inflow of capitol.  It *will* happen to third world states like ND also unless we stand up. Biofuel plants are not coming here for the grain or to provide jobs. They are here for the water and the tax bennies (we pay outside investors to take our water just like Indoneasia does with it's forest.) We still have it, other states don't as it has already been mined there. What started out as investor owned biofuel plants will be owned by ADM and Cargill in the future. When the water is gone, they'll be gone and we'll get the dry bones. Forgien ethanol has a $.45 per gal tariff levied right now. And about 80% of the Fedral Farm Program dollars go to 5% of the biggest farmers.

All which tells you that the law is written by those that show up. As we saw in the last session when HPC failed by a squeaker.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

> Question: Do you think the price of land and it's attractiveness as an investment is related to the Farm Subsidy programs?


Yes, farm programs are capitalized into the price of land.



> I am also puzzled that land seems to be a good investment yet farming does not seem as profitable.


Land is a good investment for many because it allows the owner to defer taxes on previously held land that was recently sold. (1031 Exchange) or they can't find a lower risk investment with that rate of return.

Return on equity is the measuring stick for an investment or any business for that matter. Farming can be very profitable but it is usually only like that in times of shortage. The recent spike in wheat prices is a good example of this. The difference between farmers that make money and those that do not is often times related to managerial skill.

The days of planting a crop, harvesting and hauling it to an elevator and taking the elevator price are over. Marketing and management skills are much more important today than in the past.

I am not a fan of commodity businesses and I would personally never get into a commodity type business. The only way to gain an advantage in a commodity type business is to be the lowest cost producer. A very very difficult task especially when your competition can purchase the exact same inputs as you (seed, fertilizer, tractors etc).

Add that to the fact that the buyers of your product have no loyalty to you because they can purchase the exact same product from someone else.

It's like running on a tred mill. You have to keep running to keep up with everyone else but you can never run any faster than them.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

> I think you have to revisit the "inflow of capitol arguement" as always a benifit. Third world countries are being strip mined to the rocks by the inflow of capitol.


I think they call that imperialism. :wink:

One of my coworkers said something today that I found kind of interesting.

In the early days of society clans fought against eachother. The only difference today is that the clans are bigger.

We will always try to take advantage of eachother. We will always fight for resources.


----------



## Cinder (Sep 2, 2003)

Good information here. One question for Chuck -- you used an example of buying ND land for $500 and getting $50 a month rent. Do you think that is realistic?

Anytime I hear of a land sale (very unscientific on my part) but the cash rent available in the area is no where near the 10% of the sale price. Yesterday in Milbank SD area land sold for $2200 plus an acre, but when I asked what the best rent they could get, I was told it would be $75 to $80 dollars tops.

Thats more like 3 or 4 percent without figuring taxes etc. I looked at some crp land and the crp payment was $40 an acrea. The owner wants over $1200 a acre.

Everyone has to pay taxes some time. Why keep getting 3% (or less)on your money just to avoid taxes?


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> I think they call that imperialism.


 I was thinking more like economic quislings who would sell off a natural resource they don't own to benifit themselves.

I doubt investors purchase for an immediate return from rent but rather from $ appreciation of future value. Seems odd when sector funds are producing a 30-40% return.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Cinder.....it was an example.....what you mentioned....

That $40 CRP and then the owner puts it into PLOTS....that will equal $50 rent.

But what you mentioned is happening in MN. The average land rent in my area is $120 per acre. The average cost of an acre is $2700. Yes now you only get a 3-4% return if that......that is why investors in MN or other states are looking elsewhere to put thier money! THAT IS MY POINT!

Dick....

YOu are correct....when the stock market gets more stable and we start to see the gains like in the 80's and earily 90's......land prices will start to drop. In my area you are seeing things start stablize. Another thing that will inpact land prices is the economy.....people are not getting paid as much and lossing homes.....next will be land/investments. I see it happening. I just hope it does not get as bad as in the early 80's.

He is one thing to look at......the last time a "Fuel Crisis" happened....what happened next......farms started to get owned by Banks.....Farm AId....etc. I hope this does not happen. But everything goes in cycles.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Yesterday in Milbank SD area land sold for $2200 plus an acre, but when I asked what the best rent they could get, I was told it would be $75 to $80 dollars tops.


That must have been up in the hills by Blue Cloud Abbey. Anything in the valley is renting for way over 100 bucks an acre.


----------



## Powder (Sep 9, 2003)

They may only be getting 3-4% in cash payments back on their investment per year but when the value goes up 10% each year they are actually making closer to 13-14% on their investment.

Investing is not always about what you can cash out every year. A lot of people that buy ag land as an investment are into it for the long run. Combine this with the ability to hunt it and it's very attractive.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

> I was thinking more like economic quislings who would sell off a natural resource they don't own to benifit themselves.


Quislings. I had to look that up. Good word. Very appropriate.

Raping the natural world is what put the US where it is today. We have laws here that say we cannot pollute, cause environmental damage etc so we set up a corp in another country with little regulation and start raping.

Why? Because we like to have a whole bunch of worthless shiat piled in our houses, garages, storage unit and whatever else we can find to fill.

Bill Maher said it best. "The stupidity of people in this country is only surpassed by the brilliance of our marketing."

In the mean time we work on cleaning up our environment, developing sustainable systems etc. Always keeping ahead of the curve.

Rage Against the Machine comes to mind here.

"Americanize. Americanize. See the world through American eyes. Bury the past. Rob us blind and leave nothing behind."

That's enough of my diatribes.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

gg, righto. China has put in place a moritorium on logging in China as they saw the folly of stripping their own forests. Japan also. They buy timber cheaper from the third world.........and the USA. Because the conservation benifit in their own country outweighs the purchase price of forgien timber. And that is the argument and point of resisting outside ownership of ag land here. Which the legislature has done numberous times, except when it comes to NR hunter ownership, which they encourage with unlimited licenses.

When folks talk about investment returns of land versus the market, pull up the Morningstar ratings of no-load mutual funds in the energy sector.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Why? Because we like to have a whole bunch of worthless shiat piled in our houses, garages, storage unit and whatever else we can find to fill.


GG, I think it was about a year ago some young person showed a photo of there storage unit that was packed full of decoys. Would that classify as worthless shiat?? :lol: :lol:


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Dick,
I agree that large corps do a very poor job of land stewardship. However I think we are headed toward bonanza farms if we like it or not.

BTW have you ever met Fred Kirschenmann?



> GG, I think it was about a year ago some young person showed a photo of there storage unit that was packed full of decoys. Would that classify as worthless shiat??


Yes and I've since reduced the pile significantly.


----------



## Cinder (Sep 2, 2003)

G/O . . . you are probably right on the land rent, my source does not rent land, just farms his own. Even at $120 an acre - that is 5% return, minus taxes, minus the interest on the money (or lost income if they paid cash) - I can't see how they can make money unless the land goes up at least 10% a year.

Of course the above thinking is why I never bought land in 1960's. I could have retired on land bought in those days!


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Dick stated, "*And that is the argument and point of resisting outside ownership of ag land here. Which the legislature has done numberous times, except when it comes to NR hunter ownership, which they encourage with unlimited licenses.*"

Ownership is one thing....Farming practices is another.

What you are talking about in China is a havesting practice not an ownership issue. But I agree that farming practices need to be modified if you want to save or conserve the enviroment. You need not look further than your neighboring state to the east....MN!

But the issue at hand is ownership.....NR owners are not harvesting the land, draining wetlands, raping and pillaging. It is the farmers. NR landowners are investing and then using the land as rec.

How can a NR rape and pillage the land for two weeks! Yes they can harvest there limit. But again...LIMIT. It is set by your state! It is legal.

Example on 500 acres of Posted land:

NR:
NR hunts for two weeks (group of 4) on thier posted land....shoots 336 ducks (Number is high IMO). They also shoot 168 pheasants (again high IMO). Thier legal limits.

R:
R hunts only weekend (group of 4) shoot 48 ducks and 24 pheasants a weekend. They hunt every weekend that season.....That is 528 ducks and 336 pheasants! Now those are the limits allowed!

-_ granted everyone has to use what they shoot and everything like that_.

So if you look in terms of numbers.....who is exhausting the resource.

*I know that more pressure in a short time is bad....but after that two weeks.....land is tied up....becomes a refuge! So in terms of the enviroment.....which is better. To have a lot of pressure in a short period or have constant pressure for a long period?

So just by numbers.......the R is harvesting 192 more ducks and 168 more pheasants. Which is better for population of a species.
_____________________________________________________________

I know i opened up a whole can of worms.....because we can talk about pressure and a whole bunch of other things....

But when I see post of numbers.....I have to do this as well. Also if you are talking about just helping the species and enviroment...same thing.

I totally agree that R should have more oppurtunities to hunt. I agree that they should pay less. I agree they should have more days in the feild. I agree with the R only openers. I just don't agree with putting caps on the amount of lisc. sales. I also don't agree that the NR land owner is to blame.[/quote]


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

The only point I will post about is this.



> So just by numbers.......the R is harvesting 192 more ducks and 168 more pheasants. Which is better for population of a species.


Correct me if I am wrong, but everything I have read says even if you could harvest every rooster you see, there would still be enough around to mate the hens. So in terms of pheasants, harvesting as many as you can (in most cases) will be better for the population species.

In hard winter times, I would rather see 20 hens and 1 rooster at a grain pile than 20 roosters and 20 hens. From what I have witnessed, the hens get pushed out and end up starving to death.

Just my $.02

Didn't mean to hijack the post. I just think it is hard to talk about managing ducks and pheasants at the same time. Management is quite a bit different.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Just as a sidebar since this was brought up in this thread... "Does the guy in Fargo get taxed non homestead or recreational on his hunting property in Bumf=ck ND?"

Well, In Minnesota, I own hunting/farm land 30 miles from my home ("Bumf=ck Mn.") and get taxed on that land as non homestead and recreational (even though it has a farm number and much of it is in CRP until next year.)

I figger, I owe it and will not complain. It is "recreational land" (I dont make any money off of it.) I own it for hunting and producing critters for lots of people and seeing as how tax dollars and duck stamps have helped pay for the reclaimation of wetlands out there and offsetting my costs in implementing CRP and maintenance, I will pay and be happy that I could do somthing for the good of everybody who likes to see ducks and deer and turkeys and... (Matter of fact, if any of you duck stamp buyers out there want to come and have a fantastic wood duck shoot...pm me. cannot take you all, but would like to say thanks nonetheless)

The land will still be in "CRP"... (native prarie grass) but I wont be recieving payments for it any more. 
Thank God for the program though as if that wouldnt have been around to take the sting out of it, I would still have a guy renting it for $25.00 an acre and plowing it up every year and wouldn't be to the point where I could afford to do it on my own with no more burdon on any other taxpayer.

People talk about tax dollars like they amount to more than any other dollar. I pay high taxes here on the lake but all I would have to do is quit some of my vices for a year and it would be a wash. That being said, I have no business complaining about taxes. Hell, I am darn fortunate to have what I have. Worked hard for it but I am better off than many.

In Minnesota, you are taxed upon nearly an equal amount of the market value of your property. (My taxes went up almost 50% last year)
If you live in a trailer park and have to pay $300.00 a year, or you live on a lake and pay $3000.00 a year you are essentially in the same boat. 
But who makes the loudest noise about taxes? Mr. Doublewide.

That is why I puzzle over the people who have a problem with public employees getting paid what they get paid when those public employees pay for a proportionatly equal ( or greater) percentage of their own salaries (not to mention that which they have to pay for the welfare and other programs that Joe Doublewide perhaps takes advantage of) and Joe Doublewide still gets the service of the public employee.

The difference is that "somebody" got off their dead a$$ and got a decent job.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Yes met Fred Kirschenmann once just before guys went bust planting winter wheat with Haybuster drills. That sounds tart, didn't mean it that way. Check out the 1st article in the August National Geographic.

Not trying to bang heads with anyone, just discucssing the issue of ownership. In my view outside landownership, in this case by NR sportsmen, is a silent subtle drain on the states economy. For every 8 1/4s they buy, one family farm unit goes down. With a small change in the license law, some of the incentive is removed to transfer these assets out-of-state. I am an old farmer, I'm done buying land and if more NR bought ground it would boost my net worth. I will pass for the sake of the state's welfare in this instance. Because I remember what a desperate feeling it is as a young farmer to get a piece of ground. ND needs them far more than hunting revenue.


----------



## Cinder (Sep 2, 2003)

Dick . . . thanks for your commments.

I would just add that most changes in policy cut more than one way and often in ways no one can predict. 8 1/4's going into CRP probably puts one farmer off the land too. Farm programs that allow non-resident (or anyone that does not actually farm but owns land) owners and large corporations to participate in the farm programs also put small farmers off the land.

We will never know, but what do you think the landscape would look like if the government totally stayed out of the picture. I don't know if Soil Bank in the 1950's was one of the first govt programs, but it put people off the land, big time. Great for pheasants but bad for small towns.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Yeah but Dick...

I watched my booming little town in SW Minnesota go from a corn fed, football playing, farm generated, hunting mecca...damn good place to grow up... to a dried up haven for Alzhiemers oldtimers in the home and immigrants who work in processing plants and that is about it. (God Ive had a good life)

I know what it is like for a young farmer to get his hands on (and in) that first few acres of land. The thing is that there are fewer and fewer of them out there in Nodak (just like it happened here) who want to go that route. There is nothing you can do to make that dream a reality by wishing that the land wont get bought up by NRs.

Nowadays (second generation) you have more kids who grow up seeing 500 acres as being a small farm. It takes less of them to run more land so most of them are going to look elsewhere. Sad but true. Lots of them end up in Minnesota.

If I could chuck it all tomorrow and make the living that my grandfather made on 115 acres of land and a WD45 Allis (I own one by the way for sentimental reasons) in Southern Mn. a few chickens, some sheep, 4 or 5 calves and 20 spotted pigs, I'd do it in a heart beat.

I cannot.

My whole problem with what you guys want to do is that... I dont blame you, I just think that you are throwing the baby out with the bath water.

If you want to have control. Buy the land. As indiduals...as a group...buy the land. Otherwise, you are going to watch...well some kid who is 15 is going to watch, that land, that resource, those birds dissappear just as I did. It may not be due to drainage or technology but that land will become off limits to duck and man wheather you like it or not sooner or later unless many of the people here are willing to put their money where their mouths are. Living in Fargo is not good enough. They can tell themselves that it is but wait and see what happens.

Expecting somebody else to foot the bill for the land and NRs with money and time to stay off of it, expecting the government to always listen to you and not $$$ is tilting at windmills.

You are an old farmer and a sportsman. I can respect that. I know lots of old farmers and sportsmen out there. You are a dying breed though. Reality sucks.

Many of the guys on this site who have pushed the legislation for restrictions are not old, are not farmers, are not lanowners and sportsmen is a relative term. A guy from Mpls. who moves to Fargo and claims not only residency but being a "local", has a trailer full of Bigfoots and knows a guy who knows a guy is kind of a stretch for me. Lots of college graduates ended up in Fargo because that is the where their first job was offered out of college and claiming "local" was simply a byproduct.

I wish like hell that my dad would have bought the homeplace in Jackson County Mn., and kept the 7 sloughs on it when he could have and should have.

I wish that my Grandpa would have bought the farm with a half mile of Heron Lake shoreline back in 1926 (he passed because the ducks and geese were too hard on the crops)??????????????

wish in one hand...

Dear Lord, 
Help me to change the things I have control over and accept the things I have no control over and please grant me the wisdom to know the difference.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Bert, the fundamental differance in our positions is that you believe wildlife and access to it is controled by the landowner.


> If you want to have control. Buy the land.


 My position is that of the ND Century Code that wildlife is owned and controled by the state. The state, ie the voters of that state, choose in some measure who gains access through regulation. That is the law.

You have good points in your last post, but I adamently disagree that we are powerless to affect change.


> There is nothing you can do to make that dream a reality by wishing that the land wont get bought up by NRs.


 If we sit on the warming bench and watch the game play out you are correct. Only by personal inaction will we be negatively affected by change.

The National Rifle Asc. has built one of the most powerfull political forces in this nation by calling gun owners to rise on command. Dennis Anderson of the Star Trib. and Tony Dean have both in the last month told sportsmen to get *actively* involved in the political process.

So I ask the membership of Nodak who desire change, do you belong to a wildlife org that is willing to stand up? If we do not take an active role we will get what we richly deserve from the commercialization crowd. It takes more than wishing the problem away as Bert points out. It takes more than paying annual dues and getting the newsleter once a month.

So many that post here write so well. Their argumented positions are clear and concise. Why are there so few letters to the editor and to the legislators? A $.37 stamp and your good name gets it done.


----------



## Bert (Sep 11, 2003)

Dick

My fundimental belief is that the access is, and should be, controlled by the landowner. Good luck in changing that.

You are a landowner. Have you given up that right on your land? Can any Tom, Dick or Harry come and hunt your property? (you may allow but Id bet they have to ask).

Why should people who dont own the land legislate who can and ask permission to hunt private land? (R's or NR's)

AGAIN, you (residents) should have first shot at State and Federal land because you chose to live there (the State you paid for and the Federal you paid for here and I paid for there so it is a wash), but as far as the traffic on private land... that, to me, should be up to the landowners not the "R" sportsmen.

The problem I have with what is going on in NoDak is that you guys are voicing your opinion, and being heard (by weak ears) and passing legislation on property and wildlife which you have no more financial or sweat equity in, than do I (which may get you what you want for the short term but you will be no better off down the road).

If you guys wanted to keep all of the state land for Rs for the entire season , Id have no beef whatsoever.

You pay the taxes, you live there...but...the land in question (freelancer country) and the migrating waterfowl which inhabit that country during the hunting season belongs to you, no more than me.

The land (and access) belongs to the landowner... and you no more than me (if granted permission). No getting around that.

(Birds more than game and game more than fish).

The Century Code (as I read it) is no different than Minnesota's constitiutional hunting heritage.

The big idea behind it, is to fortify the fact that folks in the Midwest need protection for their privalages to "hunt" the critters (not the land). I am all for that in a huge way. Hell, if something doesnt get written down, we are all going to be eating government subsidized tofu.

The right to hunt, and access to hunting land and the critters on that land which call that land home though (either seasonally or permanently) doesnt belong to anyone other than the landowner during the time the critter calls the place home regardless of a constitution.

Here is an example:

Lets say I have been patterning a buck for 4 years (which was born and raised on my land) here in Minnesota (letting it get a big rack) .......................

One November, you came over from Nodak to hunt your brother -in -law's land (which is adjacent to mine) and the buck in question... in the heat of passion... happened to follow a doe from my property, down the fenceline and across your shooting lane and you shot it, should I(personally) be pi$$ed at all NRs?

Should I throw a hissy fit to the Mn State Govt to keep you guys from doing that? (Like the govt. listens to sportsmen over here).

That is how I see your plight even though most of you dont own the land where the buck (rooster,drake,hen,gander,ram,tom...) was raised in the first place.

Thing is that, regardless of what you or I lay claim to as it pertains to critters, the guy who bought the land and pays the taxes should still have say so over who enters his domain to take a pop at those critters.

Seeing as how the majority of those on this site promote themselves as freelancers and the desire is to maintain access to private land for that purpose... and to keep birds around for that purpose for as long as possible...

I respectfully re-state that if you want those things, you Nodakers (Not you personally because you do not represent the majority of posters here) should at least be willing to invest somthing other than some quality time on the internet and some cash towards the cause via organizations.

...Otherwise, the arguement is over birds, (which some guy in Fargo has more no claim to than I) which seasonally frequent property, (which some guy in Fargo has no more claim to than I) and is therefore a wash.

It (as you must know Dick) costs a sh1tload of money to own and maintain land for wildlife.

It also much more of a gamble to farm X-number of acres for a living and have wildlife benifit as a by product and guess about one or the other to put food on the table for the tribe.

However, it costs comparitively very little to live in Fargo, (for whatever reason), have little or no monetary or sweat equity in the land or the critters in outstate Nodak... come to Ottertail or Becker County Mn. every weekend all summer to fish and jet ski and then act all persecuted and push like hell to keep people like me out in order to hang on to a standard of hunting which they didnt earn. That is what burns my bacon.

If you guys out there really want to make difference in the quality of your hunting experience by keeping NRs out, then do one of two things...Either spend all of your time, effort and money helping NRs to improve the quality of hunting in their own state so that they stay home... or buy up all the land out there in NoDak that you can, so that you can dictate who comes and goes and screws up your life. Otherwise you are going to get what you are going to get.

It isnt the time, effort or money from you guys that have "made" Nodak what it is for waterfowl. You lucked into that for the time being. The restrictions you have managed to push are a bandaid at best. If you really wanted to keep the pressure down and "LASTING" quality hunting in Nodak, you'd all donate to the Mn Waterfowl Assn. and show up at St Paul to push our legislature towards more duck friendly habitat over here.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Oops, someone knocking "anecdotal reports?" Wow!
Not taking sides here, but I was thinking the other day, that in a month or so we will have all these "anecdotal reports" of all the ND ducks chased to Sand Lake 1/2 hour after the non resident season starts! ! I actually heard the other day that the ND ducks are shot so hard by non residents in the fall that when they migrate north to ND in the spring they won't nest because they were hunted last fall! Guess that mallard hen says "sorry greenhead, no sex this year!" 
Talk about "anecdotal reports!?!" Next we'll be hearing that the ducks log into the G&F website and read the regulatins and leave on the eve of the NR season!
Anecdotal reports are ALWAYS slanted and blown way out of proportion to support what the reporter wants to believe and parroted along by people with similar thinking.! Usually nothing remotely scientific about them! I take them with a lot of grains of salt!
Now for my anecdotal report! 
I just completed a 430+ bike ride through some of the best duck hunting areas in ND and noticed that just about every slough was either dry or just a skim of water or green slime surrounded by a 100 yard mud flat. I can't recall seeing any ducklings at all and only a few older ducks. Can't recall even one clutch of mud hens either. The only good news is that I got the anecdotal impression that cormorants seemed to be down, too. Interestingly, I did see a single blue goose on an almost dry slough east of Audubon, presumably a cripple that couldn't make it north. Surprised me that an eagle or something hadn't turned him into lunch before then. 
So our ducks will be spotty at best, at least in the areas I rode. Further north and east where they got some rain might be better. But there are few ducks in the areas I hunt, long before those dirty rotten scoundrels, the non residents, ever arrive! A good argument for some sort of hunter pressure licensing system.


----------

