# Who Spends What Where?



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

2001-02 Overview of Hunting Expenditures: NDGF Survey

TOTAL DIRECT EXPENDITURES IN ND

*Resident Total* $132 million
*Nonresident Total* $34 million

*Res.* Small game $67 million
Deer $48 million
Furbearer $15 million
Other $4 million

*NR.* Upland $11 million
Waterfowl $21 million
Other $2 million

*Expenditures by Resident Hunters Generated*:
$154 million in secondary economic activity
$287 million in gross buisness volume
$8.6 million in state tax collections

*Expenditures by Nonresident Hunters Generated:*
$45 million in secondary economic activity
$79 million in gross business volume
$2 million in state tax collections

For a easy to read 2 page breakdown, drop me an email. Any other questions?


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Dick and Simo, thanks for the work. I too would like to see Simo's economic "white paper" posted permanently somewhere here soon, since this economic horse-hockey seems to come pretty frequently.


----------



## Brad Anderson (Apr 1, 2002)

WOW, is this true??

JMS would claim otherwise?? Just goes to show, don't believe everything ya read on the internet!!!


----------



## wiscan22 (Apr 4, 2004)

Based on the figures that you posted I'd have to say that that NR's add about 25% of the total to ND economy. Not bad for one month of income. Back where I come from a 25% increase in expenditures is not "chump change".


----------



## waldo (Mar 7, 2002)

Wiscan
Actually its 20% (34/166=20.4) and even with limits on the number of NR's I'm sure it will still be between 16% to 18% when the 2003 numbers are in.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

One point Wisccan...if we residents are forced out...all that will be left is your chump change...now which one do you think our state should be protecting if given a choice?...our 80% or your 20%?


----------



## Powder (Sep 9, 2003)

Ken's point is well taken.

But if you add the direct expenditures to the expenditures generated, then NR's ad 27.4% (160/583.6) to the economy, not 20.4%. You need to look at all the revenue generated, not just the direct amount.

So if NR's contribute 20% to the direct revenue and 27.4% to the total revenue, could one assume that the average NR contributes more to the economy (strictly on a per person percentage not necessarily total $$) than a resident?

The only way to prove that would be to divide the total dollars generated, direct and indirect, by the number of resident and NR hunters respectfully.


----------



## Madison (Mar 1, 2002)

as for the 20% NR cut, is this what was spent over the entire year, or just that two month period (oct-Nov) which is when most of the NR's are in ND???

Sorry to step on any toes but, money is money right? $34MM in two months, helps the ND econnomy quite significantly, could all the small towns stay alive without this small percentage of money, or would they be better off without it?


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

NJS did a great job distilling the numbers. I think these are the points:

Quality hunting is an attraction to live in ND for many residents.

Residents spend more on hunting than NRs.

Displace residents with a lower-spending group, and ND loses both revenue and citizens.

*These additional facts are not in the study:*

Residents purchase their vehicle in state, also tires, repairs, and insurance

NR hunting land purchase causes negative cash flow thru rents and gov payments taken out of state.

NR hunting land purchase causes the demise of farm units, removing farm and also family living expenses from ND


----------



## tumblebuck (Feb 17, 2004)

There is no doubt that hunting expenditures have a positive economic impact on the state of ND. But what about the towns that do not have services that the traveling hunter needs?

*Madison wrote:*


> could all the small towns stay alive without this small percentage of money,


Try buying decoys in Grassy Butte...or buying gas or groceries in Glenfield...or staying at the motel in Dazey. Not going to happen.

How are these towns surviving without the almighty hunter $? The argument that hunting $'s are saving ALL the small towns does not hold. The majority of that money stays in the towns where the hunters buy their gear and stay for a couple nights.


----------



## wiscan22 (Apr 4, 2004)

Dick Monson said:


> NJS did a great job distilling the numbers. I think these are the points:
> 
> Quality hunting is an attraction to live in ND for many residents.
> 
> ...


_NJS did a great job distilling the numbers. I think these are the points:
_ Please don't confuse facts with what really is nothing more than your opinion.

_Quality hunting is an attraction to live in ND for many residents._
There's nothing wrong with that. It is however being advertized by the State of North Dakota as a tourist attraction.... a way to make money.

_Residents spend more on hunting than NRs._
Maybe in the long run but per day/time spent in the state NR's consistently spend more money simply by paying for about everything they do. ie; sleep, eat, hunt/fish, lodging.

_ Displace residents with a lower-spending group, and ND loses both revenue and citizens._ Hardly a fact. An NR will NEVER replace a Residents status. Besides that if you feel so strongly that you've got the best hunting money can buy, leaving for such a trivial reason tells me it wasn't worth that much to you anyway.

*These additional facts are not in the study:* More Opinions!

_Residents purchase their vehicle in state, also tires, repairs, and insurance_ Once again how many reasonable people would go to a different state to buy a car. Of course a resident is going to buy in ND just because of the economic sense behind it. Same stands for tires, repairs, etc. etc. Hell the gas station in the town we stay in charges .20 more per gallon a gas than they do 25 miles away. We pay the price for two reasons: we believe in supporting the locals and the savings in wiped out in travel. Thats a fact.

_NR hunting land purchase causes negative cash flow thru rents and gov payments taken out of state._ Ridiculous! NR's don't qualify for government land credits with the exception of claiming the taxes on their income tax. The property taxes paid far out pace this gain. As a matter of fact we own a house in a small town and get charged for garbage, sewer, water for all year even though we only use the house for two weeks out of the year. How many reasons can you think of to justify paying $250 to get rid of 3 bags of garbage.

_ NR hunting land purchase causes the demise of farm units, removing farm and also family living expenses from ND_ Once again. ridciulous! Corporate Farming is the biggest culprit of the demise of the family farm. Let's go back in history here a bit. ND was a productive wheat state until we showed the third world countries how to grow their own wheat. That in itself gave farming a huge hit.
Next in line is guided hunts and commercially leased land. In the 26 years I've been hunting ND this by far exceeds the reason for lost hunting land and opportunity. Not NR's buying up the land.

Dick, 
You can argue the fact that the state of ND and its game is all yours if you want and you can tell everyone on this sight that you think the government of ND should perserve it for only you but I hate to tell you this, it's probably not going to happen. As far as the income generated by NR's, If your game program is that strong that it doesn't need the extra funding then why didn't your legislator just ban NR license sales. You know why? No state would be stupid enough to turn down that amount of revenue both directly and indirectly. Why do you think they do studies and examine the facts.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

No reasonable peolpe here want the NR hunter wiped out. I know that the
NR money
is good for the small town businesses as well as the large ones (ie-scheels,etc). What I think most people are trying to say is that if you set your entire business model up on a fleeting thing such as wildlife then you are doomed to failure. Certainly it helps out these businesses and no one reasonable wants these small town places to have to close but a fleeting thing such as wildlife should not be considered economic development or you will get your **s blown away with the next ND drought and/or blizzard!


----------



## drjongy (Oct 13, 2003)

The point of the whole thread is that residents out-spend non-residents by a significant margin. Sure, 20-25% is an important amount of money, but still, we need to look out for the 75-80% first and foremost.

It seems like in America these days the vocal minority has more say than the silent majority.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

You sportsmen are just to competitive amongst yourselves... now the competition is who spends the most money. Where is this going to get us, more than likely up against a deadend. I know it's fun and a hobby to talk of hunting and I guess I am entertained by it, but guys lighten up. Lets hear some stories from R's/NR's on the good hunts we all have. Use that muddy snowgoose hunt for an example if ya have to. Thanks guys :roll:


----------



## old dl guy (Nov 7, 2003)

What is trying to be stated is not what your hearing,,,if you are hearing that we are wanting all this for us residents here, you are wrong. We just want to be able to regulate what is in our state the way we feel it should be regulated. The argument that every NR seems to bring up to try and discount the waterfowl restrictions is usually economically based. It is always about the economic impact on the small towns that you guys bring up, that it will destroy the small towns. I'm flattered that you NR guys care so much about our small towns, but lets get real here. If these towns didn't have hunting or fishing associated with them, you wouldn't care a lick about them. Sorry to say, but the same probably goes for some residents here. Well the numbers do not lie and the vast majority of the money spent on hunting in this state is generated by residents. PERIOD...!!! Just like the vast majority of the lakeowners in your states are from MN or WI. Let's stop with the economic impact argument on both sides. All states don't make that much impact on their neighboring states economy, no matter how passionately you may feel about it. If you disagree with that, you probably have a some other vested reason, like you own land here, or live close to the bordering state etc....Its just not an argument that has any data to back it up. Small towns have been evaporating all over this country....for years......in all states, that even don't have hunting as their base. I mean come on guys, it gets kinda old about hearing on how we will lose our small towns if we lose the NR $ coming in. Just like i don't think your state will shut down if we stop buying lakeshore there. Lets get it to what this is all about. Allowing a state to regulate fish and game the way it feels it needs to. Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, South Dakota etc.... all regulate their fish and game and treat residents differently. If this right is lost here, it will be a loss for every state. If MN wants this right to be applied to everyone, then they will have to construct a 4 lane highway all the way from Mille Lacs to Iowa.


----------



## drjongy (Oct 13, 2003)

buckseye,

There is certainly nothing wrong with a good ol' debate. There are lots of other posts and topics on a wide variety of subjects other than this particular issue for you. Thanks.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Thank you dr I am amused and entertained with the gracious mentality being portrayed to the non-hunting world. You are right, there are alot of better things to pay attention to. Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I guess we may as well be resigned to the fact that our small towns will now consist of a Grain Elevator,a Motel,and a Convenience Store.Since everything else that depends on US year round won't be there anymore.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

wiscan, we do agree. $3 always seemed bigger than $1 unless you are an outfitter getting the $1, in which case we use Soviet math and $1 is bigger. But, you are right, that is my opinion. The economy of our state is more diverse than bar rects. in Brea ND., again my opinion.

And you are right again that we do spend more in the long run. We are here for the long run.

And you are right that beer, burgers, beds and breakfast cost us all the same, residents just consume them more days, because we hunt more days.

If quality of life is trivial matter, you now live in the right place, which is not here. We value it. Noresident hunters are always welcome in moderation. Nodakers are trying to assure a quality experiance for both residents and their guests. Seems fair, but again an opinion.

I see land cash rents and CRP payments flowing out of the state from NR land purchases. This is good for North Dakota? Our local banks don't think so. Our farmers don't think so. Our business community doesn't think so.

We will have settle for letting the voters shake it out this fall. ND voters.


----------



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

Thanks for the kind words. Now I know what O'Reilly means by a "no spin zone." Because that is where I typed it up and how I looked at the numbers. I hope they will be beneficial come the spring '05 session.

Dan B,

Any turkey success yet?


----------



## dleier (Aug 28, 2002)

njsimonson said:


> Thanks for the kind words. Now I know what O'Reilly means by a "no spin zone." Because that is where I typed it up and how I looked at the numbers. I hope they will be beneficial come the spring '05 session.
> 
> Dan B,
> 
> Any turkey success yet?


EZ there NJS---turkey season starts tomorrow!


----------



## Rangers (Dec 13, 2003)

Lets hear from some business owners from the smaller communities in rural ND. Does the additional business make a great deal of difference or are is it just icing on the cake. Does it enable you to stimulate the local economy, does it afford you the ability to keep prices down year round.

We can speculate all we want on who spends what, but lets hear it from the people who can share the bottom line on their particular business situation.


----------



## wiscan22 (Apr 4, 2004)

Dick Monson said:


> wiscan, we do agree. $3 always seemed bigger than $1 unless you are an outfitter getting the $1, in which case we use Soviet math and $1 is bigger. But, you are right, that is my opinion. The economy of our state is more diverse than bar rects. in Brea ND., again my opinion.
> 
> And you are right again that we do spend more in the long run. We are here for the long run.
> 
> ...


Hey Dick,

Sorry about that. Might have gotten a little strong there. Bottom line is we're all sportspersons and we should actually be showing a little more solidarity, especially when the biggest challenge we have is not residents and non residents.

Dick I guess the way I feel is that we're all citizens of the USA and the restrictions that are put on people just because their state of residents is different is way out of hand.... but then again that's just my opinion. My question is where does this territorial boundry thing stop. Do we start charging NR's for using out state highways? How many other state services do we apply the same principle to? As I said before in previous posts I live in a state that has a nine day deer season. We have 650,000 thousand hunters out on opening day and you know what? There's plenty to go around. As a matter of fact the WDNR has been increasing tags for the last 15 years because we don't shoot enough deer. Turkeys are about a second and Canada Geese? In Wisconsin you never have to worry about not having a golf buddy. There's always a few hundred geese to make the game interesting. I'm not saying you're wrong but hell if a NR from another state wants to come here and try for a Pope and Young. come on over. In a sense of the word we have the same problem with land sales over here except we deal with Illinois. Many large tracts of land are being sold to NR's and they get posted which quite frankly I don't like it but the truth of the whole matter is that land was available to all of us and if we wanted it we should have bought it.

As far as restricting their hunting rights beyond the cost of the license I just don't think it's right. NR's already pay license fees in excess of 1000% more than a resident would. Just because they live in another state doesn't make it right for us to put an unfair and overburdensome set of rules or requirements on them. How many hoops do you make a person jump through just to be able to hunt?

I'd like to say I agree on the CRP thing but first, CRP is a Federal Program and for the small amount of dollars lost to an NR I would almost have to believe that the benefits of having plots of land in CRP far out way the small amount of money paid to a landowner. You sure as heck ain't going to get rich on CRP income.

Unfortunately, hunting is no longer a sustanance thing. It's a sport and we made it that way. We as hunters and fisherpersons are part of a conservation plan and that's it. Once again, unfortunately, the outdoors has become big business, not only for business owners but for states in general. I'll be dead to rights honest with you. I've experienced enough hunting to where if ND shut it's borders to NR's, I would probably get over it rather quickly. It's getting way too restrictive and I'm just not going to sacrifice my soul just to shoot a duck. We'd just sell the house and go elsewhere. What would bother me though is that my children would never be able to experience what I had the opportunity to do and that's sad.


----------



## Brad Anderson (Apr 1, 2002)

In response to the cost of a license, ND just leveled the playing field. Every other state does it. Does that make it right, though??

I would love to have a chance to hunt elk in MT again. But I've heard the cost of a license has skyrocketed. So, here I sit. But it gives me something to look forward too, the day I'm back in the gallatin. And when that day comes, I will enjoy every single minute of it. I will not complain about the costs associated with the trip. I will be smiles from ear to ear, just because I got the CHANCE to hunt there again.

Hunting is something way to many people take for granted. The day that ND becomes fully commercialized, will be a sad one. Everybody will say they saw it coming, but then the question remains, who tried to stop it??


----------



## wiscan22 (Apr 4, 2004)

Brad Anderson said:


> In response to the cost of a license, ND just leveled the playing field. Every other state does it. Does that make it right, though??
> 
> I would love to have a chance to hunt elk in MT again. But I've heard the cost of a license has skyrocketed. So, here I sit. But it gives me something to look forward too, the day I'm back in the gallatin. And when that day comes, I will enjoy every single minute of it. I will not complain about the costs associated with the trip. I will be smiles from ear to ear, just because I got the CHANCE to hunt there again.
> 
> Hunting is something way to many people take for granted. The day that ND becomes fully commercialized, will be a sad one. Everybody will say they saw it coming, but then the question remains, who tried to stop it??


Hey Brad,

Most states raise their fees but Wisconsin offers quite a package for the NR. We have a license called a Conservation Patrons license giving all purchasers the right to hunt, fish, trap, use the state parks with the only exceptions being bear hunting, sturgeon spearing and your federal duck stamp. Costs $600 for adults, $75 for children 16 and younger. It's also good for all year. You're right about the cost of an elk license. I just applies for one and the cost is $620 for a combo license (muley, elk and small game). There's an extra $20 fee to buy preference points.


----------



## stevepike (Sep 14, 2002)

Can NR hunt bear and spear sturgeon? How much more does that cost?


----------



## wiscan22 (Apr 4, 2004)

stevepike said:


> Can NR hunt bear and spear sturgeon? How much more does that cost?


Hi Steve,

Yes an NR can hunt bear in WI although "Class A Kill Permits" are a six year wait. It's a real popular hunt. Cost for an NR is $250 for a Class A license. To get into the gamit it'll cost you $3.00 per year for the permit 
(Residents are charged the same) at which a preference point is added to your customer number until you get drawn for the permit. A 7 day guided hunt (you almost need one because baiting is legal and all guides bait almost year round) will cost you $750. I pay the fee because there is no way in heck I could run a bait line for under that. If you want to go it alone you can. There's plenty of state land to hunt and it's really great.

The lake sturgeon is also open for spearing although sturgeon pops are down. An NR license is $50 for either Lake Winnebago or River spearing. The biggest caution that I could warn you about is the season is based on population quotas. There is no limit to licenses sold but when the quota is reached the season closes within 24 hours. This years season lasted exactly that.... 24 hours. Normally they run about a week, this year was an extreme exception. Never speared in my life so I can't share any inside info.

Hope that helps you.


----------



## Park (Mar 14, 2004)

Dick

Lets spin the numbers seeing as only %5 of the deer tags can go NR's!

Your numbers are BS-- why don't you compare Apples to Apples?

Tony


----------



## Powder (Sep 9, 2003)

nm


----------



## stevepike (Sep 14, 2002)

Thanks for the info.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Park...only 1% of first draw rifle deer permits can go to non-res.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Was reading an interesting article this morning with my coffee at WWW.tonydean.com under issues "are we shooting to many ducks" gives a little food for thought.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Park, which numbers do you question? Pop me an email, will gladly send the 2 page summary. The data was drawn form 29,034 resident hunter and 7,199 NR hunter responses to survey questions. Pretty good sample wouldn't you agree? Of course the outfitters didn't compile it, so they don't agree with the conclusions. Funny how that works.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

The two page summary can be found here:

Page 1:

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

Page 2:

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

Thanks Nick!


----------



## Park (Mar 14, 2004)

Dick, 
You are comparing the numbers of all hunting by ND res. with only waterfowl and upland on the nonres. side. A ligitamate comparison can't be made when you throw in deer, traping, predetors and all of the rest in the mix as the nonres does not participate an any numbers in those activities nor thay allowed to in the case of Deer.
Tony :eyeroll:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Park, deer was listed as a resident activity. The figure and source were plainly stated. ???? I don't understand your question.

Had you sat through the testimony on hunting bills, maybe you did, you would know that only *once* was the contribution of resident money ever mentioned by the commercial interest. Does that seem odd? Never gets a mention. Because the commercial interest cannot tell small town business that they are actually driving away dollars from main street. Or will not. Leasing and outfitting often lock up the land for all species the whole year. To the detriment of community business.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Steve Pike if your interested in Bear hunting go to New Hampshire a non-resident bear tag is $5.00. And their bear population is fantastic. You have to buy a regular hunting liscense also which if your a bow hunter you can buy a bow license for $73.00 and hunt deer at the same time so your only out $78.00. Lots of bear last time I was there it was estimated 1 per square mile. I can put you in touch with a friend of mine in the DNR that will give you specific info. Lots of good access to beautiful country.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

WI here is the first hand knowledge about the cash flow leaving the state when land is owned by nonag interests.

320 acres of land currently enrolled in a 30year conservation program. Payments are $28.00 an acre=$8960.00 less taxes of $897.50= $8062.50

The payments leave the state to a resident in CA. This land does provide habitat which does give some local benefit but not the same amount of turns in the state if that money was spent here.

Each dollar turns in our economy about 4 times so the state loses the tax collection about $1600.00. This is just one single example.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Is that 320 acres posted?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Yes! The land owner does not want anyone getting hurt and sueing him. We hope to have this misconception cleared up for him by this fall which will mean it will be open to hunting to those that seek permission prior to the season. I have spent a great amount of time in getting him to open this up as it harbors a lot of does and they need thinning.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ron what does the NR owner own the land for, is he a hunter or is it just an investment?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

wiscan 22 some of your points are good ones but...using the wisconsin deer season as an example was a poor choice. Your deer season is a chinese firedrill with so many hunters that the quality of the hunt stinks on anything but private posted land. Spooked deer running here and there all over the woods with hunters stumbling around every bush. Opening morning sounds like WW 11, hunter fighting for "their spot" and attempting to kick people off of state and federal lands. The Wisconsin deer season is a Farce! *This is precisely what these guys are trying to avoid developing in ND.* And even though I have a georgia residence now I was raised in Wisconsin and I've hunted all nine days of the deer season all but one year since 1966. Good beer drinking and card playing but not good deer hunting. I have killed at least one buck every year so I'm not talking about poor hunting from a kill stand point but the quality of the hunt has degenerated greatly. You do have one of the best public land bow seasons available and its a bargain but only because of the vast areas of state and federal public land and the fact that the season is long so the pressure isn't concentrated.


----------



## wiscan22 (Apr 4, 2004)

Bobm said:


> wiscan 22 some of your points are good ones but...using the wisconsin deer season as an example was a poor choice. Your deer season is a chinese firedrill with so many hunters that the quality of the hunt stinks on anything but private posted land. Spooked deer running here and there all over the woods with hunters stumbling around every bush. Opening morning sounds like WW 11, hunter fighting for "their spot" and attempting to kick people off of state and federal lands. The Wisconsin deer season is a Farce! *This is precisely what these guys are trying to avoid developing in ND.* And even though I have a georgia residence now I was raised in Wisconsin and I've hunted all nine days of the deer season all but one year since 1966. Good beer drinking and card playing but not good deer hunting. I have killed at least one buck every year so I'm not talking about poor hunting from a kill stand point but the quality of the hunt has degenerated greatly. You do have one of the best public land bow seasons available and its a bargain but only because of the vast areas of state and federal public land and the fact that the season is long so the pressure isn't concentrated.


Hey Bobm,

I'd suggest you read the post over again. I was not comparing the deer hunt in Wisconsin as a model for the duck season in ND. That would be ridiculous. The whole point of the matter is we have more deer hunters in the woods than ND does full state population and there is plenty to go around.

As far as the deer season Bob, if you hang around in a group that likes to drink beer and play cards I'd have to imagine that it'd be a pretty sh*tty season. I have 50 other weekends I can drink beer on and refuse to do so during that weekend. I've hunted up north and in central Wisconsin in some of the best deer areas there are and the scene you painted isn't even close to what you described. Last year I hunted a five acre woollot surrounded by woodlots about the same size and saw three guys all season. Went over to hit the state land and that wasn't at all crowded either.

The only thing I'll say negative about it is the deer gun season tends to bring out the guy who never shoots his gun or studies the game he hunts except for that nine day period. Even at that though, with 650,000 to 700,000 hunters in the woods accidental deaths by firearms is at 1 to 2 a year. That total was much higher in the 60's.

Just one more question for you bobm. If the season is such a farce and the quality is not up to your expectations why do you keep coming back? Kind of an oxymoron ain't it?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Wiscan I don't drink not ever, deer season or not. I also don't play cards but some of my friends do which is OK with me because its more tags available for my use, but the gun deer season is exactly as I decribed it on public land. If you have some private 5 acres hideout you might get some privacy but it just doesn't exist on public land until after opening weekend. IF you hunt your little spot opening weekend then go on the public land it probably does'nt seem so bad but there are way too many hunters concentrated on the public land. I'm a serious deer hunter that hunts deer all over the country and I know quality when I see it. I come to see some lifelong friends and do something I love which is why its so painful to see what its evolved into. And do you always get so fired up? lighten up a little you are among friends here. :lol: ( I hunt around (Bow hunt )Stevens Point, Weyauwega, and Lone Rock ( huge Bucks) and gun Hunt around Silver Cliff ( near Crivitz)because thats where my friends cabin is located. My point is that Duck hunting is suffering from the same problems concentrations of hunters cause and its driving these guys in ND nuts to see whats happening. As our former president said " I feel their pain".


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

The land was bought as an investment. The land was purchased before the rise in valuation by nonag interests. The land was bought for $10800. With a net return of $8000 a year it was out yielding CD's and was more secure than the stock market. For someone with hard cash to invest and the government as your renter it was a good buy. Today it is worth twice what he paid for it and is still giving him a 8% return.

I do know he has refused to lease the land to G/O because the cost of liability insurance was equal to the dollars offered. This is why he chose to post the land. Mis information from the G/O telling him that he need to carry extra liability for hunters on his land. This would be correct if it is leased but not otherwise because of ND current laws limiting this specific liability.

had this land been offered publicly it may have stayed under in state ownership. The property became available as the estate exec was instructed to sell it. They got an appraisal and he sought out an investor and eliminated the realestate agent or auction fee's. The land was sold for a far market value for the time.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Are landowners liable for hunters injured on their land?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Public land hunting in WI is not for the faint of heart. If you can sit in a stand and see another 15 or more Orange pumkins doing the same when the sun comes up and still remain a public lands hunter then you are either nuts or not finacialy capaplbe of spending $2500 or more a year for a place to hunt and have no relatives or friends that own land.

I remember well my first and last opening morning on public land in WI. Rain and snow and fog. Dark to the point that a latern barely showed your feet. Went to the spot I had marked and scouted before the season opener. I put my tree stand up and settled in for sunrise. WIth the conditions visablity stayed to less than 200 ft until around 10:00 am when a breeze started to lift the fog. I just started counting orther hunters within my sight plane.

One of the hunters got down from his stand and started to walk out of the woods. He flushed a doe and she ran along the cedar swamp that we had all chosen to watch. I saw shot after shot being taken even with other hunters being in possible line of fire. I climbed down and walked out singing at the top of my lungs. To let anyone and everyone know that I was not a deer. I got back to the parking area and had to wait until almost 2 pm until the vehicles that blocked me in left. There was only one other vehicle when I arrived but 28 when I got out of the woods.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Bob currently ND landowners are protected against injury claims if no monetary compensation is taken for access. Hazards do not need to be parked such as holes etc. That is a short version of the current law. Many farmers are finding that liability coverage they have for there farming operations may exclude coverage for hunting related activity as it is viewed as non farming activity when leasing is taking place.


----------



## wiscan22 (Apr 4, 2004)

Hey Bob & Ron,

This is kind of a double response. Bob, you're first. To answer your question about me getting fired up, only if someone trys to make hunting look bad... particularly in Wisconsin only because I'm bias. I'm very familiar with the Crivitz area as I use to hunt that some years ago. I quit going because the wake up call lasted all night and the bottle of Beam seemed to never go dry. Since then I have hunted alot of state land before being offered the opportunity to hunt on my brother-in-laws land. Ron, I guess this is for you too.

I really don't know where you hunt but I've hunted Horicon Marsh(National), Theresa Marsh(State) Brillion Marsh(State), Collins Marsh(State), Killsnake Marsh(State) Winnebago County, Waushara County and Shawno County along with few others. Never really ran into any big crowds as you've both described. Sure I saw hunters but when you condense a 9 day season amongst 650,000 hunters you're bound to see someone, especially opening weekend. 90% of the deer are shot within the first two days of the season. Bobm you probably already know that. Actually guys this ain't the spot to be discussing Wisconsins deer season even though I guess I'm the guilty party who brought it up.

Like I mentioned before the only reason I brought it up is for a comparative numbers thing. Is it the greatest hunt Wisconsin offers?.... Give me the Turkey!!!! Which coincidentally I get to hunt next week! I agree Bobm the archery season far outshines the gun season. Too much tradition embroiled in the gun season and not enough permission being granted on private lands. Even though the format needs changing there's just no way the residents will agree to it. A change failed again this year.

Anyway, back to the ducks gentlemen.... :beer:

A word of advise, look out for that indsport guy. He really does have cold hard facts. Dick M I thought you'd like that. :lol:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Wiscan I'm pretty sure nobody on this site is trying to make hunting look bad in fact just the opposite. Rons description of public land deer hunting in Wis is right on. I will say if you understand the hunt you can profit from all the nimrods running around. Hunt escape trails and funnels between big wood lots and stay put through the lunch hour and you will get your buck at least thats what I do. I stay put until after dark even if I shoot a deer at 9:00AM I don't walk through the woods unless its dark I'm not as good a singer as Ron and would probably get shot on purpose :lol: .
Ron thanks for the info about liability its good that landowners aren't liable if they aren't leasing.
Wiscan do you know whats happening with the grouse pop in Wis this year?? Thats another real good hunting opportunity in Wis when the population is up


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

WS has lost control of it's deer population, the WS DNR wasn't happy with the doe kill last season even with all the bonus tags available. The last season I hunted there I had 4 tags in my pocket! (Balsam Lake area)


----------



## wiscan22 (Apr 4, 2004)

Bobm said:


> Wiscan I'm pretty sure nobody on this site is trying to make hunting look bad in fact just the opposite. Rons description of public land deer hunting in Wis is right on. I will say if you understand the hunt you can profit from all the nimrods running around. Hunt escape trails and funnels between big wood lots and stay put through the lunch hour and you will get your buck at least thats what I do. I stay put until after dark even if I shoot a deer at 9:00AM I don't walk through the woods unless its dark I'm not as good a singer as Ron and would probably get shot on purpose :lol: .
> Ron thanks for the info about liability its good that landowners aren't liable if they aren't leasing.
> Wiscan do you know whats happening with the grouse pop in Wis this year?? Thats another real good hunting opportunity in Wis when the population is up


Hey Bobm,

Haven't heard anything for this year but last year the pops where way up. They had some good hunting up north. If I hear anything I'll let you know.


----------



## wiscan22 (Apr 4, 2004)

james s melson said:


> WS has lost control of it's deer population, the WS DNR wasn't happy with the doe kill last season even with all the bonus tags available. The last season I hunted there I had 4 tags in my pocket! (Balsam Lake area)


AGREED!!! :beer:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Wiscan thanks I would like to know the grouse situation if you hear anything


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

Ron,

You are wrong when it comes to liability when no compensation 
changed handed. If you give permission for someone to hunt
your land and that individual gets hurt or hurts someone else,
you have just opened up a liability/medical claim against your
homeowners or farm/ranch policy. If money changes hand 
than the policyholder has voided such a contract due to 
it would now be considered a business activity and excluded.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

I would like to see Dan chime in here, but to my knowledge Ron is correct. It is no longer quite that simple though because one of the laws last session changed the threshold at which point you go from being an uninvited(nonliable) guest to an invited(liable) guest.

As a landowner I do not worry about uninvited folks getting injured out there. But you would not catch me taking even 20 bucks from someone to pay for access. Everything that I have seen, read, and insurance agents I have talked to says that then you open yourself up.

Coincidentally, the legislature passed a law stating that landowners who enroll in the PLOTS program do not incur any additional liability, wheras a private individual paying them similiar amounts would become a liability issue.

PSDC, I think that in order for the statement you made to be true the landowner would have to show negligence, or maliciousness. If he/she could not reasonably be expected to have been able to prevent the injury, there is no claim. If they could, then they were negligent, and that is what we carry insurance for, eh???


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

Sorry Tsodak,

But you are also wrong. The key statement I made was "give
permission" once that is done, that individual is now liable for
that hunter(s) even if not at fault for the accident. Remember,
medical claims can be filed for anything! Many farm/ranch
policy carry higher limits, any where from 5 to 10k. Medical
claims are not held against policyholders, but liability claims
are a chargable claim and could result in the insured being
cancelled.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

Any insurance agentsout there???


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

Hey Tsodak,

I thought the way I defend my answer would give SOME
hint of my occupation!


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I take it you are an ins.agent but are you a Judge, a Judge decides what he will spend time on in his court. As a matter of fact I believe there are special provisions in ND Code with instructions for Ins. co.'s how to handle claim and counterclaim on this.

Would my private Ins. sue the landowers Ins. for medical? It has become quite out of hand when the company we pay to protect our liabilities turns around and says some other company is liable. I learned a lesson don't become a patient in a hospital your medical ins. co. owes 3 million dollars to. You are lucky to get out alive. I suggest getting the list of hospitals nationwide that your private ins. owes money to.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

PSDC, you may be correct. I am willing to go that far, but that is a radical departure from the everything that I have read.

Are you aware of the law passed last session?

Of course we should always remember that folks can sue for anything.

And you (or your insurance company)will have to defend yourself.

The outcome of that suit is what is in question. I would want to see some evidence of this in practice and hear some legal opinions.

What you are really saying is that folks are better off not posting there land at all. Because if they do and I ask permission, then by giving that permission they incur liability??? I want to see an instance where this has happened that does not involve negligence.

Again, this is a long way from everything I have read and researched as a landowner.


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

Hey tsodak,

My answer is not a radical departure from what you may have read.

I have already been in contact with my legal department that 
handles ND. What I stated is correct. Remember what I printed
early, the incident could still result in a medical payment claim,
fault or no fault.

The sad thing, on plot land, there still could be a claim filed and
possible payment could be made against the landowner. The 
reason could be what the landowner may have done with the
plot land. For example, park an old broken down piece of 
equipment on the plot land. Liability would still extend back to
the farmer for that piece of equipment, not the Federal or State
Govt.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

NDCC Chapter 53-08 is known as the "recreational use statue" and was, I suspect, originally enacted in no small part to protect landowners from liability when granting hunting permission without charge. It's never been a complete liability insulator; just dramatically raised the standard in terms of what conduct (or lack thereof) was actionable.

Last session, SB 2321, which amounts to a "pay-hunt"-friendly amendment to Chpt. 53-08 was passed, and now 53-08-05 reads as follows:

This chapter does not limit in any way any liability that otherwise exists for:

1. Willful and malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity; or
2. Injury suffered in any case in which the owner of land:
a. Charges the person for entry onto the land other than the amount if any, paid to the owner of the land by the state; and
b. The total charges collected by the owner in the previous calendar year for all recreational use of land under the control of the owner are more than:
(1) Twice the total amount of property taxes imposed on the land for the previous calendar year; or
(2) In the case of agricultural land, four times the total amount of property taxes imposed on the land for the previous calendar year. 
At the beginning of the '03 session we were tracking 48 bills that had some impact on ND sportspersons. This was one. Outside of how you feel about pay-hunt, this bill seemed illogical and unfair how it benefitted some ND business people and not others. But, there were other fish to fry and I don't know of any sportspersons groups who put 2321 in their "top ten" bills to work on.

I don't know about the insurance issues - would probably varies to a certain extent policy-to-policy. But, under the recreational use statute, there was never 100% protection and the protection previously afforded has been extended to pay-hunt operations who fall below the monetary test.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

I think we are arguing over semantics here. Negligent or malicious conduct is never protected, and that is clear. But everything I have heard or read about accidents occuring from an unforseeable hazard, such as a badger hole only becomes an issue with payment.

Thankfully to my knowledge we have never had a problem like this at all in the PLOTS program.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

Following taken from

http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/RanchRecr/han ... operty.htm

Landowner Liability
Fear of liability exposure is a major deterrent to the development of farm/ranch recreation, although the real probability of lawsuits is unknown. To date no known landowner liability suits involving fee hunting have come to trial in the U.S. and no state wildlife agency reports they are a problem.
Landowners still worry about liability exposure even though 46 states have recreation use statutes protecting private landowners from liability suits from recreation users given free access, except in cases of gross negligence. While legal experts have stated they believe such statutes provide substantial protection to owners, the laws have seldom been tested. Landowners should always take the threat of lawsuit (and the safety of their hunting clients) seriously.
Liability risk also varies widely among states. Some states have legislation limiting the liability for recreation-related accidents depending on the gross revenue received by the operator. Incorporation may reduce the risk, but this depends largely on the degree to which a rancher is an active participant in the management of the operation. The liability issue is one on which each rancher should consult his attorney and insurance agent.
As a general rule, as the legal status classification of people on private land increases, landowners owe them more legal protection. Landowner liability exposure also increases.
The legal status of various people on private land might include (in order of legal rights) habitual trespasser, discovered trespasser, trespassing children, permittee (sometimes called licensee), and invitee. In other words, a landowner is much more liable to a person who pays (invitee) to hunt on private property than one who hunts for free, but with permission (permittee or licensee) or the habitual trespasser.
Contrary to what some landowners may think, even trespassers have rights these days, so don't even think about shooting them or setting traps. Farm/ranch operations providing access, room, board and rentals will also be subject to liability concerning licensee, invitee, bailment, innkeeper, and regulated service and sales.

North Dakota's Trespass Law
Since North Dakota farmers frequently allow the public free use of their land for hunting, special legislation has been passed protecting farmers from liability. These laws have the effect of limiting the duty of care a farmer owes to a hunter, thus encouraging farmers to allow their property to be used for hunting without charge.
As a general rule, landowners owe certain "duties and standards of care" to others who enter their land, including hunters. The degree of care required varies with the legal status of the hunter. The legal status of a hunter is determined by such things as whether (1) the land was posted, (2) the farmer consented to let the land be hunted, (3) the farmer is aware that people are hunting on the land but does nothing, or (4) the farmer charged a fee to hunt on his land.
 A farmer owes no duty of care to keep his premises safe for the use of others if he has not charged a fee allowing others the use of his premises for hunting. He also has no duty to give warning of dangerous conditions or activities existing on his land to parties entering without charge. (This does not include willful or malicious failure to warn against dangerous conditions.) In fact, a person using a landowner's premises for the purpose of hunting has an obligation while on the land. This would apply in cases where a farmer consented to other hunting on his land or where he was aware that people were hunting there but did nothing. If, however, a landowner receives economic benefit by charging a fee to come on his land, he has a duty to make the premises safe or to post signs pointing out potential hazards. This is consistent with general law, enacted in North Dakota, limits a landowner's liability where no charge is made.
Generally, permission to hunt on the land of another is presumed in North Dakota unless the land is legally posted. There are certain standards to be met before land is considered legally posted, and a farmer must post his land legally if he does not want hunters to enter. Permission to trap is not presumed. A person wishing to trap on the land of another must get specific written permission.
Legally posted land has signs giving notice to hunters that no trespassing or hunting is permitted or that hunting is allowed only by express permission. Only the owner or tenant of the land may post it, and each sign must bear the legible signature of that owner or tenant, along with his address and date of posting.
Signs must be readable from outside the posted land and must be conspicuously placed no more than 880 yards apart. Land entirely enclosed by a fence or other enclosure may be legally posted by placing signs at all entrances or gates. A farmer who owns or rents legally posted land on both sides of a roadway has effectively posted the roadway in between.
Unharvested cereal crops and sunflowers are exempted from the rule that land must be posted to prevent hunting. It is unlawful to hunt or pursue game in unharvested cereal crops, sunflower, alfalfa, clover, and other grasses grown for seed without first getting the permission of the owner or tenant.
Although a hunter may not enter upon legally posted land to hunt wild game without permission, he may enter posted land to retrieve any game wounded on land where the hunter is legally hunting should that game go onto or fall onto the posted land. The hunter, however, may not shoot form land where the hunter is legally hunting on posted land or into airspace above posted land. The game must be on land where the hunter is legally hunting at the time it is first wounded.
Anyone entering posted land without consent of the owner is a trespasser to whom the farm operator owes no duty of care other than to refrain from harming him in a willful and wanton manner.
Instead of posting land to strictly forbid hunting, landowners who are open to permitting hunter access should consider using signs inscribed with "hunting by permission only," or "walking hunters welcome." Signs like the later are available free of charge through the North Dakota Landowner-Sportsman Council, 100 North Bismarck Expressway, Bismarck, North Dakota 58105.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

"Although a hunter may not enter upon legally posted land to hunt wild game without permission, he may enter posted land to retrieve any game wounded on land where the hunter is legally hunting should that game go onto or fall onto the posted land. The hunter, however, may not shoot form land where the hunter is legally hunting on posted land or into airspace above posted land. The game must be on land where the hunter is legally hunting at the time it is first wounded. "

Clear something up for me last season we shot a pheasant and watched it fly about three hundred yards and then die and fall it was shot over un- posted land and died over posted land. When my young friend went to get the bird( which I suggested he not do) the landowner came driving up the road and gave him hell "F this and F that"ect. Was the land owner legally able to do anything or not. Don't worry I'm not going to fight some jerk over a pheasant but I would like to know the answer.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Hey Bobm....I guess we always ask if the landowner is near the area. It just makes things better for them. And if they are not near then by all means go get the game, that is the reason for the law. This is a ND law I don't know about other states.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

We would of asked if we knew who and where to ask there weren't any houses around the area. So you are telling me that we could legally go and get the bird,right ?


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

In ND yes sir....musta been somewhere near if he saw ya out gettin the bird tho. :lol:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Nope no houses around I hunt the spot we were on regularly, he came up in a truck to hunt the land. Just a cooincidence. I'm not even sure if he really was a land owner like I said above I wouldn't go get it without asking first ( as you might guess I'm not shy) I don't deal well with getting barked at so I generally avoid those situations a pheasant isn't worth it to me. When that happens I just figure I made some fox happy. :lol:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Bob O may be able to clear this up. Basically ND has two trespass laws. One civil the other concerning recreational activity related to hunting. Your young friend was within the law in going to retrieve the bird under th G&F law. The landowner can ask you to leave his property anytime they want under the civil code. The change was put into place to reduce wasted game and in most cases when confrontation occurs a call to a warden can usually settle the issue. If your friend was afield with his gun then he could have been prosecuted for trespass. If he left when asked no violation occurs. The two can and do at times conflict but have for many years worked well in our state.

There is a 170 class buck hanging on the wall of a farmer in SE Central ND that did not allow me to retrieve the deer after it died 100 yards into his pasture. At the time the retrieval rule was not in place. Harold Berlin was the warden in that area and tried to reason with the landowner but to no avail. The only good thing was the animal was not wasted as he did retrieve it and tag it. I asked the warden if this was a violation and he informed me that it would be hard to prove he did not shot the deer. In fact he said if the deer was dead and he shot it he could claim it.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

That kind of stuff is amazing what kind of trophy would it be for a guy to steal someone elses deer? Gun deer hunters are the most irrational of all hunting groups. I had a nice buck come by me in Wisconsin once on three legs (front one was broken and bleeding) I shot it and sat there to see if anyone would show up and sure enough a 15 year old kid and his dad showed up about 30 minutes later. Without giving me a chance to get a word in edgewise the old man puffs all up and starts cussing me ( I had purposely not tagged it yet) so to make a long story short I gave the kid his deer which was my intent all along and ended up telling his father that if he ever ran into me in the woods again I would shoot him and at the time I meant it. I have gotten a little mellower in my old age. 8) 
Which I guess is a litttle insight into my reactions when I get screwed with for no reason and why its best I leave pheasants on posted land alone. :lol: 
I quit gun hunting Wisconsin a couple years ago due to these kind of episodes but Wisconsin still has the best bow season in the country and I try not to miss it. First week of november big bucks chasing does all over the place and more public land than you can shake a longbow at :beer:


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

WS has the best deer hunting I have ever seen in my life.


----------

