# Cannonball Corp. just trying to "survive"



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

This was in Sunday's Forum (local paper).

-------------------------------
Fee hunting means for survival
Associated Press 
The Forum - 03/24/2002
REGENT, N.D. - The Cannonball Co. is housed in a doublewide modular building, just off main street, one of the newest buildings in town.

Manager Pat Candrian explains that it was bought in Grand Forks a couple of years ago - flood-related housing, repossessed by a bank and then moved to Regent to be headquarters for the fee-hunting operation. During the pheasant season, the building is the dispatch center for the company's 13 guides and as many as 70 hunters a day.

In the past several weeks, Cannonball Co. has been at the center of a controversy. Its members successfully lobbied Gov. John Hoeven to move the pheasant season up a week, so that corner of the state could serve more clients.

A promise from Hoeven, however, put him in political hot water with state resident hunters who are upset with the proliferation of out-of-state hunters.

Seven of eight advisory board members rejected the governor's proposal for an earlier date, and Hoeven one day later announced he would scrap the plan. Some hunters said they should have been consulted earlier.

"We didn't want to be at the center of things," Candrian said. "Maybe we're just the most visible."

Candrian, 48, knows something about surviving on the land. He lives on the home farm place, about five miles east of Regent. His family has been involved with the Cannonball Co. for all of its 10 years.

His wife, Linda, was one of its organizers and was chairman of the board. Pat, one of its first guides, has managed the company for six years, with Linda's help.

Pat, the youngest son in a dairying family, moved to California to work on a dairy farm there, but returned to North Dakota.

"California had 'different' people,'" he recalled.

"You can't beat North Dakota people," he said. "My heart is in North Dakota, and it's the people who make the state what it is."

The Candrians milked cows for nearly 22 years, until 1997.

"It was always a downhill battle with the farm," Candrian said. "It was either quit and salvage the land and keep on going with your life, or keep on farming and maybe lose it all.

"If I'd known there was such a good life after milking cows, I would have done it 10 years earlier," he said.

"That's except for the last few weeks (of controversy)," he added.

The Cannonball Co. ran its first hunt in 1991.

"The company started with a group of local farmers, basically, who got together back in tough times and low commodity prices," Candrian said. "They said, 'We've got these pheasants; we've got a resource we can market.'"

The group set up the company as an S-corporation, meaning income passes through to shareholders who are taxed individually on their corporate income, according to accountants. A common goal in an S-corporations is to pay less Social Security tax than in other corporate forms.

There were 18 stockholders. Original stockholders each received 100 shares. People contributing land, lodging or guiding received another 50 shares.

In its first year, Cannonball handled 54 hunts. A hunt is one person hunting one day. This past year, Cannonball handled 1,200 hunting days and sold about $20,000 in hunting licenses.

At $200 a day, the activity produced roughly $250,000 in revenue a year, spread among 50 different people -shareholders and guides.

Candrian draws a sharp distinction between Cannonball and others who simply lease the hunting rights.

"We do not control their hunting rights," he said. "The landowner still has his hunting rights."

Board member Barb Mayer and her husband, Vern, farm and own the Dancing Dakota bed-and-breakfast. They were among Cannonball's early organizers.

The Mayers own 1,250 acres of land, and about 250 acres are heavily hunted by Cannonball.

Barb Mayer estimates the income from the hunters - the land and 150 "hunter nights" in their bed-and-breakfast -accounts for about a fifth of their family's net annual income.

Cannonball brings in the clients and assigns each to a guide and a place to hunt.

The guide keeps track of how many birds are harvested off each landowner's land, and the company pays the landowner accordingly. The compensation rate was $15 per bird last year and is going to $17 a bird this coming year.

Landowners enrolled 25,000 acres in Cannonball in the mid-1990s. Today, the company involves about 40,000 acres, including three-fourths farmland.

Candrian notes that of the 500 or so hunters last year, about 60 were from North Dakota - about 10 percent. About two-thirds were corporate hunts.

After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, airports in Dickinson and Bismarck would have had slower going without hunters. About 90 percent of Cannonball's clients fly in, totaling more than 400 flights.

Initially, the federal government subsidized much of the development through CRP and other conservation programs. In recent years, landowners have been financing their own planting so they can control it and maintain it for maximum pheasant habitat. One landowner planted 50,000 trees on his land and installed water holes.

"He's developing that section of land primarily for pheasants because it is poor cropland," Candrian said. "And he's doing it without government payments."

Candrian said some North Dakota resident hunters have developed strong relationships with farmers and ranchers. But in general, he said, North Dakota resident hunters "have to get away from the mindset that they have the right to hunt your ground.

"They have to realize they need to develop that relationship, or you're not going to get to hunt on it," Candrian said.

Barb Mayer said the resident hunters often drive up in a $40,000 Suburban and don't want to pay to hunt. "We're driving a 1989 diesel, and the doors fly open when we turn the corner," she said.

"Well, what about the privileges we've lost?" she said. "We've lost our high school. We've consolidated our teams, so we don't have people coming to town for games, stopping at the co-op or the library. We don't have UND (University of North Dakota) in our back yard with students coming, buying stuff.

"This is all we have," she said. "We finally found a product that has value that we can be proud of."


----------



## Eric Hustad (Feb 25, 2002)

Remember it's tough out in SW ND. Like it's just great in eastern ND!!! How much do we make in Fargo compared to the rest of the nation?? If Cannonball wants to help us stuggling homeowners in Fargo maybe we should charge access to our backyards!!


----------



## Doug Panchot (Mar 1, 2002)

I read that yesterday and couldn't keep from laughing. Like you said Eric, "it's not tough to live in Eastern ND?" He is trying to get some sympathy from anybody that he can!


----------



## Eric Hustad (Feb 25, 2002)

I might get a group together to go out to these fee groups in Mott and trying to raise money for struggling home owners in Fargo. :sniper: 
One of these clowns actually said their clients fly in and buy their supplies in Fargo etc etc etc. Show me the receipts. If I was taking a trip to Nebraska I sure wouldnt wait to buy my shells there. Nice try guys but that really was a weak statement uke:

_________________
Eric Hustad
Fishing and Big Game Director
Nodak Outdoors Field Staff
NodakOutdoors.com

[ This Message was edited by: Eric Hustad on 2002-03-25 15:10 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Eric Hustad on 2002-03-25 15:17 ]


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Didn't that outfit start leasing land around Medina last year so they could start booking waterfowl hunters also?


----------



## GooseBuster3 (Mar 1, 2002)

Yes they did,those idiots are going to screw all of use over!

_________________
"Hammer Time"

[ This Message was edited by: GooseBuster3 on 2002-03-25 20:17 ]


----------



## MResner (Mar 14, 2002)

I was sure that it was illegal to sell wild game, but I just looked through the proclamation and did a quick search of the ND Century Code and didn't find anything. Has that been changed recently?


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

MResner,

I also thought the game in the state was the property of the state. If they are, some of the statements in the post are very disturbing. Some of the statements:
1. We've got a resource we can market. I thought they were charging for access, not the pheasants.
2. The landowner still has the hunting rights. I'm going to have to find out who's in the Cannonball Club and ask for permision to hunt from the landowner. He implies they can give permission.
3. Compensation is based on the number of birds killed on each ranchers land. Again, are the pheasants their property to sell?

I remember a number of years ago when the pheasants were in bad shape due to blizards and lack of food. The ranchers in the SW area actually put an ad in the Forum asking for donations for food to feed the birds. If in fact they own the birds and can charge hunters based on the number of birds killed, then I say let them feed them in the winter when things get tough also.


----------



## waldo (Mar 7, 2002)

In regards to owning the birds. Front page of Minot Daily on Sunday 3-24 "The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1842 that wildlife belongs to the public." I challenge any hunting attorneys out there to see if there is an angle that can be taken to prevent the selling of the birds, since the Cannonball Co. has admitted they are selling birds, not just charging for access.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Waldo,
Great Idea! Wouldn't you like see them try to handle that issue in court!


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

The Federal government controls the sale of migratory birds (ducks and geese), but pheasants are controlled by the individual states. MResner will need to keep searching the ND Century Code. Good Luck.

The comments below are from the US F&W web site:

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act protects more than 800 species of migratory birds - almost every common wild bird found in the United States except the house sparrow, starling, feral pigeon, and resident game birds such as pheasant, grouse, quail, and wild turkey. (These game birds are managed separately by the states.)

The Act prohibits the possession and sale of the parts and feathers of migratory birds. Use of feathers or parts from protected species in craft items and any sale of such articles would violate this law.

Feathers from legally hunted migratory waterfowl (ducks, geese, brant, and swans) may be used to make such utilitarian retail items as fishing flies, bed pillows, and mattresses. But feathers from these and other legally taken migratory game birds cannot be used commercially for "ornamental" purposes and are thus not appropriate materials for artists who sell their work.

************************************

One other Federal law that could be in violation is the Lacey Act. It forbids interstate transport of illegally taken gamebirds including pheasants. This might be a stretch.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

The fact that they are now doing the same thing for waterfowl is truly disturbing. Not to say what they've been doing with pheasants hasn't been disturbing all along...it's just really tough to think that waterfowl hunting could be headed in the same direction.  Can we say "cap" anyone?


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

Water resources and their associated wildlife are tied to the "public trust domain." If you are not familiar with this concept, I will briefly introduce the roots and where the public trust doctrine has been applied.

Under Roman law it was stated "by the law of nature these things are common to all mankind; the air, running water, the sea, and consequently the shores of the sea." What this meant was that the rivers, ports, sea, shores of the sea, and rights to fish in and use those areas belonged to the public trust. Stated another way, the "ownership" of such areas was deemed an inherent element of sovereignty. Thus, under the common law, these public rights were inalienable and could not be transferred by the government into private ownership, any more than could any other governmental power held by the sovereign. This concept, which came to be known as "the public trust for commerce, navigation and fisheries," eventually found its way into American law.

What does this mean to you? The public trust doctrine is an affirmation of the duty of the State (it does not matter where you live) to protect people's common heritage of streams, lakes, marshlands and tidelands, surrendering that right only in rare cases when abandonment of that right is consistent with the purposes of the trust. Or stated another way, the State has the responsibility to protect the continued sustainability of an ecosystem so that people can benefit from its common heritage resources, their uses, and ecological values. This is a moral obligation of the State supported by case law under the principles of the public trust doctrine, which dates back to the Roman era.

In today's society, the public trust doctrine is usually applied by the Federal Clean Water Act (as amended) to protect against all unsuitable uses of the federal and State's waters (through the Section 401 of the Clean Water Act). What is fascinating about the public trust is that it is now shifting from water issues to wildlife resources. Most case law supported the Public trust doctrine by impacting uses of water that were considered unsuitable to downstream users ranging from pollution, diminished aesthetics or natural beauty, interference with the right of the public to enjoy a natural resource of state or national significance, or threatening to upset the ecological balance of nature.

I recently attended a seminar on this subject, and as the speaker said, "&#8230;all you need is some ambition, money, and a very creative lawyer, and the Public trust doctrine has great practicability to protect your public trust rights when it comes to wildlife."

In essence, all "State" wildlife is held in perpuity within the "public trust." This public trust resource (furbearers, large mammals, and upland game in this case) is administered by the state wildlife commission and implemented by the NDFG via rules, code, etc. So to conclude, if an entity is degrading a "public trust" resource, you have recourse to sue that entity via this doctrine.

[ This Message was edited by: bioman on 2002-03-26 13:06 ]


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Matt,

A road well traveled lately. In the 2001 ND legislative session, the guides and outfitters had "confiscated" or had allocated their needed share of licenses 2,500 (about 10% of 25,000 at one point). Search out some of the previous posts for past discussions.

Outfitters already take half of the available NR deer licenses which they can then sell as a package hunt on the internet for $1500 to $2500.

Caps will certainly reduce the overall number of NR hunters in ND.

Unless ND sportsman are diligent and at the top of the legislative game -- the big outfitters will get every license they need and probably more.

Someone look back at a previous post on the Casselton meeting. Did the guy owning the Streeter guide service (HUGE # of acres under lease) even propose that all NRs should be required to hire a guide ??

The Medina area was one of my favorite areas to duck and crane hunt in the 1980s. I drove through this area in 1999. There are two lodges in Medina, one in Streeter and now Cannonball is moving in too (or did they affiliate with one of the two lodges already in Medina ??)


----------



## BigGuy (Mar 25, 2002)

40,000 acres tied up for only 1,200 hunter days total. :******: That is way too much land for only 440 nonresident, 59 resident, and one governor hunters. :******:

About 70 hunters/day on 40,000 acres is 1 hunter per 571 acres (that is almost a section apiece guys) :******:

Think there may be a serious under harvest of roosters on this land ? 

Hope none of these landowners have depredation issues in the winter


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Field Hunter,
You are referring to:
NDCC 20.1-01-03. Ownership and control of wildlife is in the state
Schedule of monetary values. The ownership of and title to all wildlife within this state is in the state for the purpose of regulating the enjoyment, use, possession, disposition, and conservation thereof, and for maintaining action for damages as herein provided.

Your argumment is supported by NDCC:
http://www.state.nd.us/lr/statutes/centurycode.html

Everything has an owner. (NDCC 47-01-09)

The game animals belong to, and are controlled by, the state. (NDCC 20.1-01-03)

Individuals own the land, not the game animals on the land. (NDCC 47-01-04; 47-01-12 )

Landowners who charge for hunting access are "exercising unauthorized control over" game animals. (e.g., no individual can sell access to a state owned computer or car or whatever even if it is located an an individual's property). This is theft of property from the state (NDCC 12.1-23-02.)

This deprives the state of economic value of something that belongs to the state (NDCC 12.1-23-10.3.)

NODAK OutDoors should ask ND's Attorney's General for an opinion on such matters.

M.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

Good stuff MRN. I'll look into the links and see what can be done.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Wow !!! If thats real those folks might all turn into preserves. I don't mind preserves - if thats for you - go for it (can be excellant way to work a dog) & many don't have time to really HUNT. But to try & turn so much area into a preserve is ridiculas.

I have wondered what Pheasants Forever must feel about their hard work - being sold & now alot of members & donors are unable to persue the birds, they have helped to provide ??? Plus the G&FD has stocked birds in areas & if successful in getting them established & lucky enough to have nature cooperate. Then the areas get posted & the birds sold ??? These areas could be great for all if programs like plots and block management were implemented & farmers & landowners were handsomely rewarded. Why are so many, so stubborn, on looking at alternatives ???

To bad these things have to be learned, with a us against them attitude & the other sides (many who are not hunters or landownwers) trying to spin things in their favor ??? Instead of finding real solutions to problems they have created ???


----------



## waldo (Mar 7, 2002)

Chris, 
Have you made any progress with finding out how what the Attorney Generals position is?


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

I haven't heard back yet. I'll let the forum know as soon as I hear.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

I received word from the Attorney General's office. They cannot provide assistance to the public, but they did say they saw relavance in the case.

I'm currently working on getting my local representative to bring it forward.


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

Chris:

Don't forget the relevance of the public trust. I can put you into touch with one of the leading people on this subject.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

Bioman,

Drop me an email at:

[email protected]


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Bioman, what do you do for a livin ??? You need to move back here & be our lobbiest - If this idea comes to have merit. You should be nominated for a Roughrider award :thumb:

If ND could get back 1/2 the Brain Power we have exported - we would / should not have economic problems. ( well at least the ones that hunt :grin:

[ This Message was edited by: Fetch on 2002-04-09 20:23 ]


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Way to go Chris!
My guess is that Carlson would send it up.

M.


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

Fetch:

I am a wildlife biologist employed with an environmental consulting firm. I was born in MN, but "grew" up in ND during my formative years. I graduated from a ND high school and attended the U. of North Dakota (go Sioux!) earing a degree in Biology.

I left the state when I lost a job with the coal industry back in 1994. My parents still live in Bismarck and I have a younger sister enrolled at Century High School. I am very fond of the State, always will be, and consider it my second home (with or without hunting).

Someday, I will be back within the borders, but I have to gain more experience as a wetland scientist and biologist before returning and attempting to make a positive contribution in ND.

I wish you guys the best of luck in preserving the unique hunting tradition in ND, it is that special. I am more than willing to helping your cause (at least in areas that I can be effective).


----------



## Westerner (Mar 15, 2002)

For all of you wondering how "legally" Cannonball can can be selling birds, the fact is that they don't sell birds, what they are selling it the access to certain land that the landowner has agreed to put into the company. I think you are misunderstanding how their pay program works. The hunter is charged a flat rate of ~$200 for a day of hunting. Therefore it is "access" that is being bought and sold. Where the $15-17 comes in is that is what the landowner is compensated for the birds shot on their land. The animal is not being bought or sold, they are simply the agreed upon measure of how much compensation the landowner will get at the end of the year. It is a way of measuring how many pheasant were killed on a given plot of land and to encourage the landowner to help pheasant to grow.

As for the person who commented on the fact that the article indicates that the landowner still has the right to allow hunters onto their land without paying a fee, that is correct from when I have talked to the landowners in Cannonball Comp.

One thing that has to be kept in mind is I read in the Bismarck Tribune a couple of weeks ago that the average income of a resident of Hettinger County (incl. Regent and Mott) is under $15000 per year. The state average is over $20000 per year. I am by no means saying that people in other parts of the state are rich, but neither are the people in these hunting companies.

-------------------------------
Fee hunting means for survival
Associated Press 
The Forum - 03/24/2002
REGENT, N.D. - The Cannonball Co. is housed in a doublewide modular building, just off main street, one of the newest buildings in town.

Manager Pat Candrian explains that it was bought in Grand Forks a couple of years ago - flood-related housing, repossessed by a bank and then moved to Regent to be headquarters for the fee-hunting operation. During the pheasant season, the building is the dispatch center for the company's 13 guides and as many as 70 hunters a day.

In the past several weeks, Cannonball Co. has been at the center of a controversy. Its members successfully lobbied Gov. John Hoeven to move the pheasant season up a week, so that corner of the state could serve more clients.

A promise from Hoeven, however, put him in political hot water with state resident hunters who are upset with the proliferation of out-of-state hunters.

Seven of eight advisory board members rejected the governor's proposal for an earlier date, and Hoeven one day later announced he would scrap the plan. Some hunters said they should have been consulted earlier.

"We didn't want to be at the center of things," Candrian said. "Maybe we're just the most visible."

Candrian, 48, knows something about surviving on the land. He lives on the home farm place, about five miles east of Regent. His family has been involved with the Cannonball Co. for all of its 10 years.

His wife, Linda, was one of its organizers and was chairman of the board. Pat, one of its first guides, has managed the company for six years, with Linda's help.

Pat, the youngest son in a dairying family, moved to California to work on a dairy farm there, but returned to North Dakota.

"California had 'different' people,'" he recalled.

"You can't beat North Dakota people," he said. "My heart is in North Dakota, and it's the people who make the state what it is."

The Candrians milked cows for nearly 22 years, until 1997.

"It was always a downhill battle with the farm," Candrian said. "It was either quit and salvage the land and keep on going with your life, or keep on farming and maybe lose it all.

"If I'd known there was such a good life after milking cows, I would have done it 10 years earlier," he said.

"That's except for the last few weeks (of controversy)," he added.

The Cannonball Co. ran its first hunt in 1991.

"The company started with a group of local farmers, basically, who got together back in tough times and low commodity prices," Candrian said. "They said, 'We've got these pheasants; we've got a resource we can market.'"

The group set up the company as an S-corporation, meaning income passes through to shareholders who are taxed individually on their corporate income, according to accountants. A common goal in an S-corporations is to pay less Social Security tax than in other corporate forms.

There were 18 stockholders. Original stockholders each received 100 shares. People contributing land, lodging or guiding received another 50 shares.

In its first year, Cannonball handled 54 hunts. A hunt is one person hunting one day. This past year, Cannonball handled 1,200 hunting days and sold about $20,000 in hunting licenses.

At $200 a day, the activity produced roughly $250,000 in revenue a year, spread among 50 different people -shareholders and guides.

Candrian draws a sharp distinction between Cannonball and others who simply lease the hunting rights.

"We do not control their hunting rights," he said. "The landowner still has his hunting rights."

Board member Barb Mayer and her husband, Vern, farm and own the Dancing Dakota bed-and-breakfast. They were among Cannonball's early organizers.

The Mayers own 1,250 acres of land, and about 250 acres are heavily hunted by Cannonball.

Barb Mayer estimates the income from the hunters - the land and 150 "hunter nights" in their bed-and-breakfast -accounts for about a fifth of their family's net annual income.

Cannonball brings in the clients and assigns each to a guide and a place to hunt.

The guide keeps track of how many birds are harvested off each landowner's land, and the company pays the landowner accordingly. The compensation rate was $15 per bird last year and is going to $17 a bird this coming year.

Landowners enrolled 25,000 acres in Cannonball in the mid-1990s. Today, the company involves about 40,000 acres, including three-fourths farmland.

Candrian notes that of the 500 or so hunters last year, about 60 were from North Dakota - about 10 percent. About two-thirds were corporate hunts.

After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, airports in Dickinson and Bismarck would have had slower going without hunters. About 90 percent of Cannonball's clients fly in, totaling more than 400 flights.

Initially, the federal government subsidized much of the development through CRP and other conservation programs. In recent years, landowners have been financing their own planting so they can control it and maintain it for maximum pheasant habitat. One landowner planted 50,000 trees on his land and installed water holes.

"He's developing that section of land primarily for pheasants because it is poor cropland," Candrian said. "And he's doing it without government payments."

Candrian said some North Dakota resident hunters have developed strong relationships with farmers and ranchers. But in general, he said, North Dakota resident hunters "have to get away from the mindset that they have the right to hunt your ground.

"They have to realize they need to develop that relationship, or you're not going to get to hunt on it," Candrian said.

Barb Mayer said the resident hunters often drive up in a $40,000 Suburban and don't want to pay to hunt. "We're driving a 1989 diesel, and the doors fly open when we turn the corner," she said.

"Well, what about the privileges we've lost?" she said. "We've lost our high school. We've consolidated our teams, so we don't have people coming to town for games, stopping at the co-op or the library. We don't have UND (University of North Dakota) in our back yard with students coming, buying stuff.

"This is all we have," she said. "We finally found a product that has value that we can be proud of."

[/quote]


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Westerner,

I think you misunderstand. Charging for access is tantimount to licensing - or excercizing unauthorised control of something they don't own. There is no economic value of land access other than for the pursuit of "state-owned" game. Without the state-owned game, there is no value for hunters. Of course, this recognizes that title of the land does provide the landowner the right to allow or disallow access.

Perhaps a "real world" example will help you to understand. Consider why Alberta has such laws. As a landowner of excellent hunting land in Alberta, I realize that the wild game does not belong to me.

http://www.albertaoutdoorsmen.org/hunti ... index.html

Access to Public and Private Lands
Except under authority of a Game Bird Shooting Ground Licence, it is unlawful to directly or indirectly buy or sell, trade or barter, or offer to buy or sell access to any land for the purpose of hunting any big game, furbearing animals or game birds.

WILDLIFE ACT of Alberta

http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/Documents/acts/W10.CFM

1984 cW-9.1 s48;1996 c33 s34
Disposition of access to land
49(1) No person shall directly or indirectly buy or sell, trade or barter or offer to buy or sell access to any land for the purpose of hunting any big game or any fur-bearing animals on any land.
(2) No person shall directly or indirectly buy or sell, trade or barter or offer to buy or sell access to any land for the purpose of hunting any game bird except as provided in subsection (3).
(3) No person shall directly or indirectly buy or sell, trade or barter or offer to buy or sell access to any land for the purpose of hunting upland game birds
(a) on privately owned land unless the person holds a licence issued to the person for that purpose pursuant to this Act and except in accordance with the regulations, or
(b) on public land that is not privately owned land.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

westerner,

I agree with the $200.00 access fees but can't on the $15-17/bird idea. That's charging $$ for birds, that in my opinion belong to the state.


----------



## Westerner (Mar 15, 2002)

First of all, I don't know the laws of Alberta and am not going to argue your knowledge of them. The landowners out here do not claim any ownership of the wildlife (beyond that of being citizens, just like hunters). What the landowners are doing is simply controlling access to their land. Again, all that is being purchased by the customer is right to access to the land. The payment to the landowners is based on how many pheasant are coming off that land. The pheasant are not being bought by the company it is simply the way that the company (an organization of landowners, lodging providers, guides and other service providers) has decided to compute compensation to the landowner. I have never seen an instance where anyone of the landowners in this part of the state has made any claim of ownership of the birds. If the birds fly onto public land or private land that is not under their control they claim no right to it. All that they are arguing is that their land is under their control (a fact you seem to agree with). Do you propose a better measure of how the landowner should be compensated? If they are paid by the acre then there is a greater chance that the company will get more control of those acres, if they are paid per hunter then there is no incentive to "grow" as many birds and help the population of the birds. Basically, this would be very difficiult legislation to get through the legislature. It would be asking them to put a limit on the second largest industry in ND (tourism), and hurting the "off the farm" income of the states largest industry (agriculture). That is a tough sell and would take little or no "lobbying" to get blocked. I think it would be seen as an attempt by a relatively small number of people (resident hunters---<50000 people according to licenses) to manipulate the larger portion of the population. I know there will be many who will disagree with this statement, but I believe it is true.

I am sorry to say that it would be a relatively simple case that Cannonball Company would make in court I think. And even if they were to lose the battle they would simply make some change in their format for paying the landowner and, similar to what happened with the moving of opening day, landowners that were not even involved will get angry and post land that would otherwise be open.

Honestly, if I were a "sportsman" I would lay low for a while and encourage my friends to do the same. The louder you slap eachother on the back the angrier the landowners become (whether it is reasonable or not). I think there will be significantly less land available already for hunters because--again, accurately or not--they are perceived as "pushy." I don't condone this behavior but it is there and will have to be dealt with. I will say it again, I think hunters best option is to try to smooth ruffled feathers (no pun intended) rather than push their "advantage" because the landowner still has the trump card--they choose who will be on their land and do not legally need to give any form of justification (also a law I don't foresee getting changed).

As for you, Field Hunter, I hope this will clarify things. It is simply a way to determine how much each landowner will receive. It is a simple, incentive based program. Logic says that the more birds you have on your land, the more will be taken off. The landowners even agree it is fair, and they would have the most grounds to complain since, technically, they could be "black balled" by the company and not as many hunters allowed on their land. No one, not the company, not the landowner, not the hunters (fee or not) are making any claim of ownership of the birds. If this doesn't answer your question, please explain what is confusing about it for you. At the end of the year, the number of pheasant taken off of each landowner's land is multiplied by $15 ($17 next year---landowners got a raise) and that is how much they get.

As for requiring licenses for hunting companies, the first group that would get licensed is the members of the Cannonball Company. Their guides already go through whatever licensing requirement the state already requires, they are CPR certified, have 2-way radios and/or cell phones to cope with emergencies. Both the company and the individual farmers have liability insurance to cover accidents. All the lodging sites comply with state regulations for lodging, sales tax is charged. Basically, all the hoops put in front of them by the state government have been jumped through. Adding more will be nothing more than an inconvenience for them. I think I have already covered the difficulties in passing legislation to limit (or eliminate) fee hunting. Again, another probably unpopular opinion, but those are the facts as I see them.

One last point, the last I heard the group in Medina asked Pat Candrian to come out and talk to their group about setting up a hunting company. Cannonball Company decided not to include them in their company in an effort to keep things more local and give the group in Medina local control. I wouldn't worry about Cannonball Company's imperial motives. They aren't going to turn away land nearby the land they already have access to (in fact, more have contacted Cannonball Company since the decision to keep the season opener where it was---landowner's approached Cannonball, not the other way around) but they don't go around the state trying to "recruit" land


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Westerner,

It's not the factuality of the Alberta law, it is the ethic and the reason it has been spelled out so clearly in Alberta's case. The point was to see if you can understand the basic idea - land owners do not own the game animals and that is the only thing that hunters are seeking. To deny that is foolish.

So lets try again. If you want to see the factuality of ND law I have attached a few portions below. The issue lies in the economic value of the game animals which lies with the state, not individual landowners or with cannonball.

Thrown out of court - kinda doubt it. A simple opinion of current ND law by the attorneys general would be pretty interesting. Might read much like the Alberta statute. Maybe not.

Lie low?- doubt it - land owners I talk to think a few greedy landowners are stirring up a lot of resentment against them. They don't want an east/west, urban/rural divide any more than anyone else. These are good people who do not want to be viewed as the enemy. Me neither.

***********
20.1-01-03. Ownership and control of wildlife is in the state
The ownership of and title to all wildlife within this state is in the state for the purpose of regulating the enjoyment, use, possession, disposition, and conservation thereof, and for maintaining action for damages as herein provided. (snip) The state has a property interest in all protected wildlife.

12.1-23-02. Theft of property. 
A person is guilty of theft if he:
1. Knowingly takes or exercises unauthorized control over, or makes an unauthorized transfer of an interest in, the property of another with intent to deprive the owner thereof;
2. Knowingly obtains the property of another by deception or by threat with intent to deprive the owner thereof, or intentionally deprives another of his property by deception or by threat;
(snip)

12.1-23-10.3. "Deprive" means:
a. To withhold property or to cause it to be withheld either permanently or undersuch circumstances that a major portion of its economic value, or its use and benefit, has, in fact, been appropriated;
b. To withhold property or to cause it to be withheld with the intent to restore it only upon the payment of a reward or other compensation; or
c. To dispose of property or use it or transfer any interest in it under circumstances that make its restoration, in fact, unlikely.


----------

