# MN Lawsuit



## nodakoutdoors.com

I just received an email that says, "MN Atty General Mike Hatch and Rep. Collin Peterson are holding a press conference at 2:45 to discuss " a lawsuit that says ND laws restrict the rights of Minnesotans to hunt in that state."

Anyone know any more about this?


----------



## Dan Bueide

Was tipped to this a few days ago. Supposedly, will be couched on "commerce clause" type issues ala the Arizona case we've discussed in the past. They have been shopping in ND for ND commercial hunting interests to join the suit with MN as plaintiffs. Will be very curious to see who all of the named plaintiffs are and who eventually joins the suit as plaintiffs. This is big, really big, and has huge implications. Regarless of how you feel about feathers, are you currently disappointed about waiting for buck tags in certain areas for 3,5 or 7 years? Try 7, 10 or 13. It's that big. May not be the topic of this suit or at least right away, but those are the kind of issues that will be directly implicated by this suit.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Dan in reading some info on the AZ suit this could rebound back on MN meaning that all the regulations on any waters deem naviagable would be treated in the same manner. THis would include the Great Lakes the Mississippi and a number of other waterways and tributaries. The Red Lake River and any tributaries that feed it would not be closed to nonres spearing or fish house licence requirements or a list of other things. Since bears are migrating into ND this could mean that ND res would be able to hunt black bear at the same price as a Res along with other animals if it can be proven they move freely across the common border. White tail deer do not know that the Red is a MN and ND border. I might sound like I am reaching but deer migrate to winter area's based on food and shelter. I watch deer swim the river her in Fargo quite often.


----------



## Dan Bueide

Ron, I'm sorry to be blunt, but I'm not sure what point you're getting at - there's very little in terms of reciprocal fallout to MN. Statistics show there is relatively little use by nonresidents of the MN hunting resources, especially from ND res. Yes, it could render some of the currently proposed retaliatory MN fishing restrictions void, but I think most ND sportspersons would gladly trade less fishing opportunities in MN for restrictions on nonres hunters to preserve hunting quality here.

Still not sure why MN doesn't focus its attentions, resources and interests for the benefit of all of its 1,000,000 resident sportspersons as opposed to the 20,000 or so who travel here. Worry about the mess in your own backyard before you insist on picnicking in someone else's.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Dan the net affect would not be limited to ND residents sorry if I gave you that impression. We agree on this and a friend of mine down in St Paul has indicated this is mainly being driven by a couple of big contributors to Hatch and Peterson that have land in ND and are upset with not being able to get Deer tags and hunt the entire waterfowl season.

If it goes forward and depending on the outcome has the potential to wake up the hunters in this state. To many have sat around and taken the attitude that if it is not in my back yard it does'nt matter.

I became aware of it last Fri but could not confim it should have PM'ed some of you.


----------



## Matt Jones

Are they planning on listing any other states in the suit as well? They're better be a list of a TON of states since I'd be willing to bet most have some restrictions benefitting their residents. Like Moose hunting in MN for instance. :roll:

I still don't understand why SD was never brought up by MN before all this. They've had much more restrictions long before and are still more restrictive than ND. Funny how that works...

Another thing that I find extremely frustrating...Colin Peterson is behind all this!!!! You have to be freakin' kidding me!!! This is the guy who is trying to kill CREP in MN and he's worried about his constituents "right" to hunt somewhere else?!?! Excuse me but WTF!?!?! This is typical 'Sota Bull**** politics...and the sad thing is most sportsman in the state are going to bite on this crap hook, line and sinker. Instead of trying to do something to improve the terribly degraded habitat in his own state, because he is owned by the AG companies, Peterson does this to take the attention off him...and will most likely be heralded by the state's sportsmen for addressing what is their biggest concern right now (which is being able to escape their own state to hunt)...I guess that improving the habitat in MN means nothing, at least to Peterson.

What MN sportsmen should be doing is busting their ***** to get CREP passed along with securing permanent funding for the DNR through the sales tax initiative (which would include in it a MASSIVE walk in program). As well as string Colin Peterson up by the balls since he is the last thing a REAL sportsmen could ever consider as a friend.

The notion that the biggest need for Minnesota sportsmen right now is to have open access to the Dakotas reflects why the habitat in their state is ****. Hopefully they'll wake up and tar and feather Peterson like he should be instead of hoisting him up on their shoulders. :******:


----------



## SiouxperDave25

http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=52297

Minnesota officials sue over North Dakota hunting laws
Associated Press - 03/09/2004

ST. PAUL (AP) - Minnesota officials fired a shot across the border Tuesday with a lawsuit contesting a North Dakota law that places restrictions on visiting Minnesota hunters.

Attorney General Mike Hatch said he would file the lawsuit Wednesday in federal court in Bismarck, N.D. It seeks to stop Gov. John Hoeven and that state's wildlife regulators from enforcing a law that prevents nonresidents from starting their waterfowl hunting in North Dakota at the same time as residents and limits the places visitors can hunt.

Hatch said the law restricts interstate commerce and is discriminatory toward out-of-state hunters.

U.S. Rep. Colin Peterson, D-Minn., is listed as a plaintiff. He said constituents in his district, which borders the Dakotas, are angry about being frozen out.

"What I really have a problem with is the migratory birds of this country belong to all of the people of the United States," Peterson said. "They do not belong to the people in North Dakota."

Calls to Hoeven's office and the North Dakota Game and Fish Department's director were not immediately returned.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty endorsed the move, saying months of discussions with Hoeven failed to produce a change in policy.

"Limiting out-of-state hunters _ even if they own land in North Dakota _ from hunting during the legal season sets an alarming precedent for interaction between the states," Pawlenty said in a news release.

He added, "In our own Legislature, there is an effort to retaliate against the unfair North Dakota laws by putting restrictions on out-of-state anglers. It's not healthy or productive for either of our states, which is why we need to find ways to solve the problem before we start building walls."

By law, the North Dakota Game and Fish Department gives residents a week's head start over nonresidents in some hunting seasons, including ducks and geese. Hunting grounds for nonresidents also are more restricted than those open to North Dakotans, and nonresidents pay more for many North Dakota hunting licenses.

An average of 30,000 nonresidents, half from Minnesota, hunt ducks and geese in North Dakota.

Hatch said if the goal is conservation of wildlife, North Dakota officials could enact stricter bag limits on each hunter rather than cut nonresident hunters out.

Last August, a federal appeals court struck down an Arizona regulation that limited the number of bull elk and antlered deer permits given to nonresidents to 10 percent of the total tags issued.

The federal judges found the cap "substantially affects and discriminates against interstate commerce." The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Arizona's appeal.


----------



## Dick Monson

WOW--come in from work and read this. It's going to be real interesting to see which of our North Dakota resource extractors signed on to this baby. We are going to have our work cut out for us in the next election and the next legislative session. ETREEETREEETREEETREEETREEETREE! Sign up-snooze you lose.

Thanks to our governor for Pheasnatgate-the gag order on NDGF-pandering to commercial interests that don't put a damn cent back-buddy up relationship with Farm Bureau. Sweet. Sweet.


----------



## MRN

I doubt this is more than a symbolic effort. There is not a chance that it would stand, even if a clueless federal judge sided with them. No state law or regulation would be valid because it affected interstate commerce.

You would imagine the MN AG would have better things to do with "15,000 more people walking around with loaded hidden guns...."

M.


----------



## Field Hunter

Good thing I didn't forget my BP med this morning....I've always stated that we in ND are not trying to keep NRs out of the state just trying to limit the numbers and times of year. But! Can you say CAPS, CAPS, and more CAPS. Where does the Governor of MN get off trying to tell ND what to do with their resources. Can't wait to hear the response from our Governor on this. Pawlenty wants to "work" with the state of ND on hunting issues? Hardly!!!!


----------



## KEN W

This could unite ND sportspersons.If there is one thing that makes the hair on the neck of a ND resident stand up...it's someone trying to tell them what they can or cannot do.


----------



## Field Hunter

Bye the way.....I'll be contacting EVERY farmer that lets me hunt...and there's a lot of them.....to lock-up the land for resident hunters the first week regardless of where this goes. Can't you see the signs now, "resident hunters only due the complete lack of respect for ND by the governor of MN". And...unfortunately....I'll be looking into leasing of the good spots for the season before somebody else does. And a couple of NRs have already approached farmers in the areas I've hunted for years to do just that!


----------



## Crabby

:beer:

It ain't politics, it's the law.

He He!

You guys really gotta travel more.

Crabby


----------



## dleier

KEN W said:


> This could unite ND sportspersons.If there is one thing that makes the hair on the neck of a ND resident stand up...it's someone trying to tell them what they can or cannot do.


well put
:beer:


----------



## H2OfowlND

I've been on a couple sites since I read about this just a lil bit ago and all the MN boys are for this lawsuit. Guess they've Pi$$ed their own resources away now they want ours! TO HELL WITH THAT!! If they want all season hunting, MOVE HERE! 
Improve your own state before you tell ND what to do!! 
Collin Peterson is just a puppet, think of all the votes he's looking at getting!! Is he up for reelection this fall???

H2Ofowl


----------



## Dick Monson

*Game Management By Lawsuit*  Shouldn't be surprising , because the resource extractors have been pulling the same thing right along in the western states. Idaho, Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, Arizona. Makes you wonder who put money in this suit? Besides the outfitters. Like the old "hidden hand".

North Dakota sportsmen talk but they don't walk. Maybe they'll walk now.
Best advertizing the NDWF, United Sportsmen, Alliance, and Nodakers could have had. For the price of a tank of gas you can join all four. Thank you much MN!


----------



## tsodak

Excellant post from Tony Deans website

Dear Fellow Sportsman,

I am writing you regarding perhaps the single most important issue facing sportsman today. This issue has gone relatively unnoticed by the public, but will soon come to light, yielding serious consequences. The issue may be prevented, but I need ALL your help. I know this letter is long, but PLEASE BE PATIENT AND READ THE WHOLE THING.

The issue I am describing involves hunting and states rights. Multiple groups (primarily individuals) in this country have aggressively undertaken the task of stripping individual western states of their right to regulate the wildlife within the borders of their state. These individuals have filed law suits against multiple western states alleging that individual states do not have the right to limit the number of big game hunting permits to individuals who are not residents of that state. In addition, they are alleging that states do not have the right to charge different prices to individuals that are not residents of that state. They are accusing states of "discriminating" against nonresidents. Further, they base their case on the fact that much of the big game harvest that takes place in western states is on federal land, thereby making equal access to all, inherent. This is not an entirely new issue. It has been going on for about six years, however they have recently won multiple court cases and the current cases have a lot at stake. This brings up multiple issues.

The first issue is individual states rights. Each state should have the right to manage the fish and wildlife resources within their boarders, which includes the selective harvest of game species on federal land. Each state should also have the right to determine the portion of tags that are allotted to nonresidents, and their associated price. The people who live and work in a state should have the inherent right to participate in selective harvest tag drawings without the increased competition of individuals from other states. United States citizens should have the right to hunt in any state of their choosing, and currently they do. However, the current and pending litigation concerning this matter threatens to undermine the right of state residents by forcing states to provide fully open competition for all big game licenses.

The second issue is economics. Fish and wildlife management agencies in many states obtain a large portion of their revenue from the sales of nonresident tags and licenses. If states are forced to charge the same price for all tags, regardless of residency, state agencies will lose substantial portions of their annual revenue. Another economic issue is tag affordability by the average resident sportsman. If tag prices become equally priced for residents and nonresidents, state fish and wildlife agencies are going to be forced to increase tag prices to make up lost revenue. The potential increase in tag price would inevitably prevent many individuals from being able to afford them, particularly individuals who are trying to obtain a tag or tags for their children in addition to themselves.

The final issue is the commercialization of hunting. Hunting is a right in America. Hunting is part of the culture in America. Hunting is part of many American's heritage and tradition. Hunting is a key management tool in the management of many wildlife species in America. The very foundations of hunting are being threatened by this issue. Currently, it is relatively easy for state residents to obtain a big game tag in their state at an affordable price. If tags become very difficult to draw and/or unaffordable, and state residents find themselves unable to obtain a tag over a period of several years, interest in hunting will dwindle. The right to hunt, to partake in a tradition which is part of our heritage, will have been stripped away. Hunting will become a sport only for the rich. The average hunter cannot afford to travel all over the western U.S. to hunt. In addition, the average hunter will not be able to afford to apply for big game tags all over the western U.S., in the hopes of obtaining a chance to hunt big game.

The individuals filing the lawsuits to take away the opportunity for the average hunter to hunt are owners of large, multi-state outfitting businesses that sell guided hunts (with tags) to well heeled customers. They want access to more tags so they can make more money.

Remember, the lawsuits pertain to hunting on federal land. This includes all National Forest Service Land, Bureau of Land Management land, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service land, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers land, Bureau of Reclamation land, and many state game production areas land. Although it is not widely known, many state wildlife management areas are on land that is on lease from federal entities or was purchased with all or some federal funds. The current series of lawsuits have very far reaching implications well beyond the Western United States.

Looking at the big picture, it is easy to see the potential fallout of these court cases. If individuals are unable to obtain big game tags from year to year in their local area, interest in hunting is going to dwindle over time. Generations will not be brought up with the typical hunting traditions. A loss of interest in hunting will result in a loss of interest in conservation, wildlife preservation, natural resources, and gun ownership. Rather than being a grass roots tradition, hunting will become an upper class vanity sport.

Please do not sit idle on this issue. It is perhaps the single most important issue facing hunters today. If hunting traditions and the sport of hunting are lost for the working class American, pro-gun advocates and conservationists alike will suffer serious setbacks. Lets face it, although it is a constitutional right to bear arms, many people care about the gun issue because they hunt. Likewise, most sportsman are very conservation oriented and cognoscente of natural resource issues. Currently most conservation funds come from sportsman's dollars. For example, the Pitman-Robertson Act of 1937 (wildlife restoration act) provides each state with matching federal dollars for wildlife through the taxation of your purchase of firearms, ammunition, archery equipment and other hunting related equipment. A decrease in hunting will result in a decrease in the sales of merchandise that, through taxes, fund wildlife restoration in each state. This is just one of several examples. Although there are differences in the hunting community with regards to guns and conservation, it is time to put differences aside and fight the issue at hand. It has never been more serious than it is today.

The law suits are being brought by multiple entities; the largest one being the Nonresident Legal Fund. It was founded and is currently operated by United States Outfitters (USO) out of Taos, New Mexico. They along with Dallas Safari Club and African Safari Club have launched a series of lawsuits, several of which have already won in Arizona, and others still pending in several other western states. USO has a television show on the Outdoor Channel called "Real Hunting Adventures". Many hunting product companies that shoot videos, like Primos, utilize USO for their services, and are thereby helping fund these lawsuits.

What can we, as real sportsman, do about this? We can do a couple of things. First, we can voice are opinion by calling United State Outfitters and the Dallas and African Safari Club and voicing our outrage and disgust for their actions. Second, we can call all supporting companies that employ USO's services and announce our intent to boycott their products, and why (including the Outdoor Channel and Primos). Finally, and most importantly, we can write letters to our state's Senators and Representatives requesting legislation to protect the rights of states to manage their fish and wildlife and to set tag prices and resident/nonresident license ratios as they see fit and to help prevent the commercialization of hunting for the rich only.

Please send this letter to as many people as possible. We ALL need to work together on this. If you have any questions, please e-mail me at: [email protected]

Thank you for your time and help in this matter!

Ryan Newman

PS - Here is a list of addresses:

ADDRESSES

United States Outfitters 
4204 NDCBU 
Taos, NM 87571 
Ph # - 1-800-845-9929 
E-mail - [email protected]

Primos 
604 First Street 
Flora, MS 39071 
Ph # - (601)879-9323 
E-mail - http://www.primos.com/contact_us.php (done through wesite)

Outdoor Channel 
43445 Business Park Drive Suite 103 
Temecula, CA 92590 
Ph # - (800) 770-5750 
E-mail - [email protected]

Dallas Safari Club 
E-mail - [email protected]

SENATORS BY STATE

All senator contact information is listed on the following website:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_i ... rs_cfm.cfm

The Honorable Mr. {insert congressmans name)

Dear Mr. *********,

I am writing you regarding a very critical issue that affects thousands of voters in our state. This issue has gone relatively unnoticed by the public, but will soon come to light, yielding serious consequences. The problem can be prevented with your help. The problem, as well as a proposed solution, is outlined in the following paragraphs.

The issue I am describing involves hunting and states rights. Multiple groups (primarily individuals) in this country have aggressively undertaken the task of stripping individual western states of their right to regulate the wildlife within the borders of their state. These individuals have filed law suits against multiple western states alleging that individual states do not have the right to limit the number of big game hunting permits to individuals who are not residents of that state. In addition, they are alleging that states do not have the right to charge different prices to individuals that are not residents of that state. They are accusing states of "discriminating" against nonresidents. Further, they base their case on the fact that much of the big game harvest that takes place in western states is on federal land, thereby making equal access to all inherent. This brings up multiple issues.

The first issue is individual states rights. Each state should have the right to manage the fish and wildlife resources within their boarders, which includes the selective harvest of animals on federal land. Each state should also have the right to determine the portion of tags that are allotted to nonresidents, and their associated price. The people who live and work in this state should have the inherent right to participate in selective harvest tag drawings without the increased competition of individuals from other states. United States citizens should have the right to hunt in any state of their choosing, and currently they do. However, the current and pending litigation concerning this matter threatens to undermine the right of state residents by forcing states to allow fully open competition for big game tags.

The second issue is economics. Fish and wildlife management agencies in western states obtain a large portion of their income from the sales of nonresident tags and licenses. If states are forced to charge the same price for all tags, regardless of residency, state agencies will lose substantial portions of their annual income. The other economic issue is tag affordability by the average resident sportsman. If tag prices become equally priced for residents and nonresidents, state fish and wildlife agencies are going to be forced to increase tag prices to make up lost revenue. The potential increase in tag price would inevitably prevent many individuals from being able to afford them, particularly individuals who are trying to obtain a tag or tags for their children in addition to themselves.

The final issue is the commercialization of hunting. Hunting is a right in America. Hunting is part of the culture in America. Hunting is part of many Americans heritage and tradition. Hunting is a key management tool in the management of many wildlife species in America. The very foundations of hunting are being threatened by this issue. Currently, it is relatively easy for state residents to obtain a big game tag in this state at a very affordable price. If tags become very difficult to draw and unaffordable and state residents find themselves unable to obtain a tag over a period of several years, interest in hunting will dwindle. The right to hunt, to partake in a tradition, part of our heritage, would have been stripped away. Hunting will only be allowed for the lucky and the rich. The average hunter cannot afford to travel all over the western U.S. to hunt. In addition, the average hunter will not be able to afford to apply for big game tags all over the western U.S., in the hopes of obtaining the chance to hunt big game. The individuals who are filing the lawsuits are owners of large, multi-state outfitting businesses that sell tags to individuals and then take that person on a hunt for a very high price. They want access to more tags so they can make more money.

I am respectfully proposing that you introduce a piece of legislation that will guarantee states the right to fully manage fish and wildlife (game species) in their state. The management of these resources should include the ability of the state to choose the number of tags allotted to resident and nonresident hunters, and the associated prices. Please help us protect states rights. Please help us protect and preserve our hunting tradition and heritage. Please help us prevent hunting from becoming completely commercialized. I would be willing to help in any way.

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. It is VERY MUCH appreciated! Thank-you.

Very Sincerely,

Ryan L. Newman

Something we should all think about.

Tom


----------



## Fetch

Our wishy washy Govenor (& other politicians) better say the right things about this & come out swinging

There are lots of people riding the fence about him already & it will be interesting where our Democrats fall in line in all this. I can see them loving Hoven getting the blame - but this is bigger than just him --- I'm for cleaning house of all them if this goes thru

It's really too bad - But I say Fight for all we can - This may be our last stand !!! We have already compromised & let our politicians try to do the right things & they really screwed up - If we lose this I cannot tell you how Mad I'll be

Support us now or face political backlash unheard of in this region


----------



## ND decoy

Well now ND might have to control the numbers buy raising prices to limit the number of people coming here. Or buy putting in more zones and saying ok 100 nonresidents can hunt the zone buy Kenmare but no limit on the number of people who can hunt in Bowman for waterfowl. Also start making zones for upland game. This whole thing is not going to be a pretty.

So did the bill limiting nonresidents in MN get pulled yet?


----------



## Field Hunter

Dick,

Please post web sites for the organizations you mentioned. Not being a memeber of them is not an option any longer.

Thanks


----------



## Quackhead

I'd like to be the first MN resident to post here on the subject....and I'd like to say I think this a terrible, terrible idea. What good is going to come of this, really? NONE......

So maybe I get to hunt the first week, but who wants to deal with the cold stares and bitter feelings? I know landowners in ND that have let me hunt their land for 5-6 yrs now. Has my state government just cut those ties for me?

This is a lose-lose!

I think the two states could do more by working together on a reasonable solution to the whole mess!

Quack! Quack!


----------



## Dano2

ya, I dont care for this much either being from Moorhead.
This is just adding more fuel to the fire on the NR bashing.

Only thing I would like to see is the option of an extended upland game license, for an increased fee ofcourse.
Your 5-10 nr upland gamers could come over and hunt for their $90
or whatever, and for those of us right across the river that would like to hunt a little bit more could perhaps get a little longer season for a little bit larger fee , (and not another $90 for 10 days I have to pick right away)

Since I attend NDSU and have a student ID card, maybe I should just move in with my brother inlaw during pheasant season :lol:


----------



## Duey

In the name of capitalism, I disagree with every single opinion on this thread. Its a supply demand issue. ND has the supply and MN has the demand. When supply cant keep up with demand, what happens? Right, prices go UP!

Everyone needs to STOP approaching the issue on an emotion level and start approaching it on a rational, logical level.

A buddy of mine was a former ND resident and an avid bowhunter like myself. He moved to Texas and called me the first fall in texas and started ranting about how he was selling his bow and all his garb because "EVERYWHERE" in TX is "Pay to Hunt" even for residents. After calming his down I explained it to him. He has three choices, give up the sport he loves, move, OR pay to hunt. Well after a few minutes of discussion he agreed with me that paying a few $$$ to enjoy the sport he loves is a much better than giving it up.

Whats wrong with paying to enjoy a hobby? Some people golf, are green fees free? Some people work out, is a Gym Free?

I guess what I'm getting at is, things change. Choose your battles wisely!

One solution for everyone on this board would be (the first one is free) form a Nodak Outdoors Club, register as an LLC with the Sec of State and buy some land. Hunt when you want, lease when you're not.

In life, the glass needs to be half full because we are only here for a short period of time. And besides, it only makes life harder than it has to be my looking at every glass half empty.

Just my two cents.


----------



## smalls

Let me speak irrationally for the masses here. DUEY, YOU'RE AN IDIOT. Remove this post, I don't care because I genuinely feel better about myself now.

We are trying to avoid the circumstances for which you speak. You told your friend he could move, think about that. That is the reason many of us STAY, it's the same decision, we don't want to move to a place whose natural resources have been bastardized and hung with a price tag.

The NODAKOUTDOORS LEASE CLUB, this makes me think you haven't read a single thread on this website ever. I think the good people of this site (and even FETCH) have made it clear that compromise and complacency are not options.

smalls


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com

This one is going to get ugly, and I can just see the junior high line being drawn up the Red River. People are really going to explode over this. It's a shame that this is what it comes to. I'm still feeling like a deer in head lights, so I'll just put in my two cents.



> Peterson added, "In our own Legislature, there is an effort to retaliate against the unfair North Dakota laws by putting restrictions on out-of-state anglers. It's not healthy or productive for either of our states, which is why we need to find ways to solve the problem before we start building walls.


I grew up fishing a lake in MN that had a lot of spear fishermen, and as a non-resident I was not legally able to do so and still don't. I'm not complaining, I'm merely stating he should understand his own laws that they do put restrictions on out-of-state anglers already. And to solve a problem is by sueing our Game & Fish's right to manage a resource?

I wonder how much time I'm going to have to spend moderating this forum for the next year? :roll: Thanks Peterson. :bs:


----------



## GooseBuster3

Im am boiling!!! BUT IM NOT GOING TO SAY ANYTHING!! If a NR gets a muley tag before me it will be the End of the world. :******: :******: uke: uke:


----------



## tumblebuck

Another Mn resident here saying this is a terrible idea. This lawsuit and all the others are going to ruin hunting as we know it.

Dick, can non-residents join any of the groups your supporting? Maybe it would help you guys to get some feedback from those NR's like myself and Quackhead to give to your rep's?


----------



## Dick Monson

tumblebuck, Absolutely you can join,  , and thank you very much on behalf of sportsmen on both sides of the river.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com

An email, letter or phone call to Peterson isn't a bad idea either.


----------



## duxnbux

I respect and agree that the Game and Fish departments of each state probably have a better grasp on managing the wildlife in their state than does anyone else.....including the legal system. This is obvious to most if not all sportsman, but these lawsuits completely undermind the season frameworks set by the Game and Fish departments whose primary role is to manage the wildlife resources in each state. I would love to spend more time hunting/fishing in other states, however due to the state laws and regulations I am unable to do so. I respect each states right to look out for the residents who live in the state, pay state taxes, etc before my "rights" to their resources. Obviously every state has certain laws in place that "limit" the rights of non-residents and that is the way it needs to be to ensure that the resources are available for everyone to enjoy.


----------



## Capt. Kevin

:******: Fellow ND sportsmen as we all now there is a *election* coming up this november and I am very very very anxious to see how the govenor plays this one out and indeed we need to retaliate with caps on nr waterfowl tags because we can deal with our deer, pheasents, and ducks how we what South Dakota *(4000)* does why cant we?

:welcome: :bop:


----------



## Brad Anderson

I cannot believe that it has come to this!!!!!

Duey, do us all a favor and keep your posts to yourself. Pay to hunt, it will be a cold day in hell........


----------



## 4CurlRedleg

There is 30 some posts here, and alot of PO people. :******: Now we can all apply it to something useful and e-mail, send letters, make a phone call to our governor and representatives. Let them know where you stand to make sure they know where they stand this fall. We can win this one, but pressure must be applied hard and often!!!
The sotans may have the money, but we have the mass with the power to remove who will not look out for us residents. :******:


----------



## Robert A. Langager

It is early and I have not had my coffee yet. I am grouchy (Chris knows). I take a lot of heat from the boys for being a RABBIT CHOKER and I think I take it fairly well...............................................................

.............................but this is the first time that I have EVER been embarrassed to be from MN(well, except for the Vikings, but I got over that a long time ago  ). Jesus Christ, what a bunch of whiney pissant dumb-*** RABBIT CHOKING dillholes!  :******: uke:  :withstupid:

Colon Peterson's contact info:

Washington, DC
(202) 225-2165
(202) 225-1593 (fax)

Detroit Lakes
(218) 847-5056

Marshall
(507) 537-2299

Montevideo
(320) 269-8888

Red Lake Falls
(218) 253-4356

Redwood Falls
(507) 637-2270

Willmar
(320) 235-1061

Führer Pawlenty's contact info:

To contact Governor Tim Pawlenty and Lt. Governor Carol Molnau, please write, phone, fax or e-mail.

Mailing Address: Office of the Governor
130 State Capitol
75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55155

Telephone: (651) 296-3391
(800) 657-3717

Facsimile: (651) 296-2089

E-mail: [email protected]

Reichmarshall Hatch's contact info:

You may contact the Office of Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch with questions or for help at:

(651) 296-3353 or 1-800-657-3787

TTY: (651) 297-7206
TTY: 1-800-366-4812
(TTY numbers are for callers using teletypewriter devices)

Office of Minnesota Attorney General
1400 NCL Tower
445 Minnesota Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
The email address for the office is [email protected]

Have fun!


----------



## Duey

So, I'm the idiot? No, I'm just the only one that isn't looking at the issue like a women.

Take a deep breath and relax.

The lawsuit? WRONG! Period.

But why has it come to this?

The only way everyone will be satisfied with the outcome is to stop going off the handle and be rational and logical.

Writing and calling Collin Peterson will accomplish nothing. We didnt vote for him.


----------



## BigDaddy

Folks, I have been trying to do some homework on the MN lawsuit, and I think we might be getting a couple of things confused.

Tony Dean's article mostly centered on some recent lawsuits in western states dealing with differential access of residents and non-residents to hunt federal land. Most of the game species involved are non-migratory species like big game.

If I understand the MN lawsuit, it is centered solely on migratory species like waterfowl. I think the MN argument centers on migratory species being a resource belonging to all folks, not just those in a given state. Therefore, MN is sueing for equal opportunities to hunt them. If this lawsuit is successful, a state would have to give residents and non-residents equal chances of getting a waterfowl license, and all hunters would have the same seasons and bag limits. I don't think that this lawsuit will have any bearing on different prices for resident/NR fishing licenses or different chances to get a big game tag.

Somebody let me know if I am correct here.

OK, so let's forget about non-migratory species like pheasants and deer because I don't think the MN lawsuit is intended to tell states that they can't manage their non-migratory species. Instead, let's focus on migratory species. What strategies do we have to counter the MN argument? Are their models with other interstate resources that we can call upon? Anybody have any experience in this area?


----------



## Duey

Big daddy hit the nail on the head. We are stull ONE country before individual states. We may have the best waterful hunting but we as ND residents DONT own the resource. Sorry if you see it different but you're wrong.


----------



## backwater

The reason this lawsuit could happen is because the waterfowl are property of the FED gov. not any state. So thus everone should have equal oppertunity. I am from WI and I disagree with is lawsuit but in pricipal it probably will become a reality. I feel for you guys, you have world class wingshooting and I think in 20 years you still will but you will have to pay $$$. :eyeroll:


----------



## Dan Bueide

BigD, when this suit develops, I think you'll find the migratory feature is just an "excuse" and not particularly central to the real issue. By couching this suit on the commerce clause, if MN prevails, ANY different treatment of nonresidents on ANY feature for ANY species (number of tags, number of days, number of hours, license prices, etc.) must meet a very high standard to survive, and state restrctions that are found to be covered by the commerce clause usually do not survive.

The bell-weather issue in this case is whether hunting is "commerce" or "recreation." Before the Arizona case, all or most courts found that hunting was recreation, and therefore the commerce clause did not apply and states could treat res and nonres differently. The 9th Circuit found that hunting was more like commerce than recreation, so the commerce clause applied and Arizona's 90/10 bull elk tag allocation did not pass muster as far as a permissible infringement of interstate commerce.

So, even if the MN suit is confined to the Early waterfowl opener, the 14 waterfowling days and the plots restrctions, if MN previals, direct and likely binding precedent will be set for buck tags, turkey tags, elk, sheep, moose and ANY OTHER aspect of our hunting and fishing format where there is ANY different treatment of res/nonres.

This is VERY, VERY, big, and by attacking on the commerce clause basis, MN seeks to reverse the ways in which all or most states, including MN, has managed its hunting and fishing resources for more than 100 years.


----------



## gandergrinder

Sorry Duey but the resources are owned by the public and under the jurisdiction of the states to manage. Which means we do own the resources. These lawsuits are undermining the ability of State wildlife agencies to do there job and manage the resource.

This will put a huge black eye on Minnesota sportsman. I for one am ashamed to be from Minnesota today.

Minnesota has just woke up the sleeping giant.


----------



## Robert A. Langager

Calling and writing Colon Peterson would be the thing to do for the MNs on this site that agree with all y'all. Crap, I live in NC now and I am writing and calling. I don't really care. I still have friends and family in MN and I sure can try to get them fired up on this too.

Robert, who, after this, may as well tattoo "Rabbit Choker" on his forehead as a preemptive measure.


----------



## BigDaddy

Dan,

You might be right in that the migratory species focus is just an excuse. However, we must remember that non-migratory species are defined as being the property of the state. That is why NDGF has the authority to manage them and not an individual landowner. That is also why MN is targeting migratory species since they are not defined as being the property of an individual state.

The AZ case centered on the land, not necessarily the resource. I think the plaintiffs claimed that a state can't restrict access to federal land because it belongs to all US citizens. The plaintiffs probably didn't care if the target species were migratory or non-migratory.

I seriously doubt that any reasonable court would rule that a state doesn't have the right to differentially treat residents and non-residents for non-migratory species on non-federal land.

Again, we need to come up with some sound arguments against the MN lawsuit. Are there models with other resources (water, air, etc) that we can use as examples?


----------



## SiouxperDave25

The solution seems simple to me. Post everything solid and don't let any 'Sotas on the land. Then it won't matter what happens with the lawsuit.


----------



## Robert A. Langager

I just want to give all y'all a little background info about myself so you can see just where I am coming from on this issue.

I was born in Fargo but spent my life from 6th grade on in SW MN. Somehow I ended up in NC so my wife could pursue her Ph.D at UNC. So now I am at NCSU double majoring in Watershed Hydrology and Environmental Engineering. I chose this career path for the birds.

I grew up chasing ducks and am a relative latecomer to ND. But I am so fortunate to have fallen in with a great crowd. :beer:

Anyhow, my choice in careers was based on the hope of coming back to MN to work on wetland restoration and to bring back the waterfowling heritage that MN once had. I remember not to far back that there was a push by the MNDNR to assess the changes in waterfowl habitat and to try to restore the great traditions that MN once had.

What happened? People are so short sighted and have forgotten the big picture. They want it all and they want it now. Why would I want to work in an unappreciated underpaid profession in a place where people who claim to be so concerned about the environment do the exact opposite in their actions?

It frustrates me to see things go this way and to see a bunch on MNs hop on this bandwagon. I don't want to work for those people, they will never see the light. They are never going to change. I may as well go work where I really want to, in ND. But then what would I do with my new tattoo?

This is not forward thinking.

RC


----------



## MRN

Since we'll be discussing these things a lot in the future, here are some links to the Lacy Act, Weeks-McLean, and the 1918 Migratory Bird Act.

http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/intrnltr/ ... .html#mbta

Bascially these were intended to STOP the commercial aspects of hunting.

the most relevant being:
US Code, TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 7 > SUBCHAPTER II > Sec. 708. 
Sec. 708. - State or Territorial laws or regulations

Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to prevent the several States and Territories from making or enforcing laws or regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of said conventions or of this subchapter, or from making or enforcing laws or regulations which shall give further protection to migratory birds, their nests, and eggs, if such laws or regulations do not extend the open seasons for such birds beyond the dates approved by the President in accordance with section 704 of this title

My hope is that the suit simply gets withdrawn once they realize how goofy it is.

M.


----------



## Dano2

Well I must say, last year I didn't come over to hunt pheasant becasue I couldn't afford it and felt under pressure about the whole 10 thing.
This next season, I planned on going no matter what,
but now I may not because of whats going on now, I will be embarrassed driving around with MN plates.

Anyone have some spare ND plates :-?


----------



## Dan Bueide

It had been a while since I'd looked at the AZ case, so I found and read it again. Here's the link:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopin ... penelement

Don't see that federal lands had much/anything to do with the analysis.

Plenty in the holding and dicta of the case for everyone to argue their points. As you'll see, whether any particular restriction is permissible is very facts and circumstances driven. BUT, the bell-weather question is whether hunting is recreational or commerce, and the 9th Circuit in this decision broke out of the weight of authority (not all cited by the Court) by determining that hunting was commerce and not recreation.

With it's "commerce clause" suit, MN is making the very same arguments made by the outfitters in the Az case, and if MN prevails, will make EVERY differential treatment of res/nonres subject to scrutiny. If MN previals, some of the current ND differences would likely survive scrutiny (e.g. relatively minor fishing license cost differences), but the deer and other big game and turkey license formats would be in serious jeopardy.

As I said before, even if you don't give a rat's pitute about feathers, this should scare the living bean-dip out of the hoofs guys.


----------



## BigDaddy

Dan,

Thanks for the homework on the AZ case. Has anybody obtained a copy of the MN lawsuit? It was supposed to be filed today in Bismarck.


----------



## Fetch

It shows their Arrogance & lack of Respect for ND

Were nothing but their back yard / playground

We have tried everything to be nice & find ways to be fair & even then many of us feel like we are losing big time & hate to see ND become over run by NR's - we asked them to join us & help educate our politicians in what would really be best for Freelance Hunters & they never got it, or really helped in fact they helped confuse & make our politicians become pawns in all the debate - instead they confused our lawmakers so the commercial sides we have been fighting, seem to have their support :******:

What we have is so special & may be one of the last things that truely makes ND special - why we would not get MAD and say to heck with you is beyond me

This the best example yet of poor leadership & mismanagement of our G&FD by politicians trying to run things :******: We need strong Leadership now more than ever - not legislators & Govenors (& now National politicians :roll: ) that really don't hunt or really care about much involved, except money :******:

You get what you give


----------



## KEN W

I agree Gander...I am from Minn also...this will do nothing but hurt both res. and non-res.

Minn seems to forget that all those fish in Rainy,Lake of the Woods,Superior etc belong to everybody...but they still get to make the laws to fish them however they see fit.


----------



## tumblebuck

Here's a link for the story on the front page of the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/531/4654373.html

The more I read, the worse it gets.

What most MN hunters don't realize that this will do nothing to help the average joe. This is purely political and driven by money.

Reallistically, how many MN residents spend more then 14 days in ND anyway? I want their jobs if they do. So we can't hunt the first week....phhhbt. Hunting is better later in the season anyway. At least then I can tell the difference between a hen and drake mallard.


----------



## Dan Bueide

Not often, but on this one I almost entirely agree with Fetch. I always expected ND defending a suit like this some day, but expected it would come from some well-to-do MN resident with ND landholdings - not the State of MN proper. This is very insulting and arrogant coming from the State to say the least. The message is not only are we okay with ND becoming a Buffalo Commons, we want it as OUR Buffalo Commons.

I'm trying to think of another example where a state has devoted so much of its resources and energies on something having absolutely nothing to do with anything that occurs or influences anything within its own borders, for the benefit of about 3-thousandths (.003) of its population no less. To devote such resources for the benefit of so few on an issue wholly outside MN borders, obviously, there are a few very large contributors driving this, and the R's and D's are falling all over themselves to show who is doing more.


----------



## MRN

Dan,

How does such a case have any standing?

First, the commerse clause says that Congress has the authority to act on issues of interstate commerce:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ... iclei.html
Section 8 of the Constitution: The Congress shall have power...
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

Other than thhat, states can do whatever they wish.

Second, the congress has already pass the applicable law in the MBTA (see a few posts back above).

Therefore, even if it is deemed interstate commerce it just means thhat Federal law, the MBTA, shall supercede state law. The MBTA says states can do as they please.

Seems simple to me.

M.


----------



## Field Hunter

Have to agree with Dan on the type of game that is moving this issue. It's not the waterfowl. It's a bunch of border sportsmen, sorry but I've talked to a number of them, who are upset that they now have to ante up a little more to play in ND. It's the guys that live right inside MN and want to hunt doves, grouse, partridge, pheasant and don't like the charging extra for every 2 week license. I for one am glad I don't have MN plates on my vehicle. I think there will be severe posting for MN sportsmen if this passes. I just think the average landowner/farmer is going to be outraged! I feel for some of you guys from MN that actually understand the issues in this Fall's hunting seasons in ND.

If this went through, and I hope it doesn't, would this open up all of MN's resources to NR's to MN as well? Or would the state of ND have to sue MN for reciprocity?


----------



## Ripline

North Dakota resident duck hunters. 
A few years back here in SE WI we had some issues with our local government officials. The uproar gained momentum and the elected officials were remove from office via a recall election. If your elected officials are not supporting your beliefs, this may be a way to get the right people in office.

PLEASE, do not include all NR in your anger. Many of us are with YOU and what your trying to keep precious.

I wish the ND resident hunters the best of luck in this BS lawsuit from MN. Please continue to post up and even PM us NR's who want to help you in ANY way we can. The ND tradition can't be lost!!!


----------



## Dan Bueide

MRN, con law wasn't/isn't exactly my strong suit (eventually finished second in my class, but had to dig myself out after starting law school with a glowing C+ in con law first semester  - still able to find a little humor).

The twist on the AZ case is how they got to the commerce clause - that somehow hunting has become commerce because hunters sell animal parts (i.e. racks). Give me a break - what percent of hunters participate in hunting and for what percent of the time to eventually sell their harvest?

9th Circuit is the most heavily over-ruled of all the circuits. They are known for their novel, unique (being kind here) decisons, which has resulted in the highest over-turn rate of all circuits. Always thought the game-selling angle into the commerce clause was flimsey, and I don't think it would resonate in an area with deeper remaining hunting traditions.

That the US Supreme Court refused to hear the AZ case shouldn't be given too much weight, either way. They get something on the order of about 10,000 appeals each term, and only hear about 200 cases. they need to prioritize. If a circuit eventually holds contra to 9th, then the US Supreme Court is more likely to weigh in to resolve the split - not good to have different applications of Federal Law in different areas. But, even there, it may take more than a one-one split before they'd decide to get involved.


----------



## H2OfowlND

I want to be the first on here to THANK--- RANDY KRIEL-sp? from the NDG&F DEPT for his efforts this morning to open up Mr. Peterson's eyes on this issue. Randy did one HELL of a job explaining ND's efforts to keep the resource protected from over hunting. After explaining it Peterson didn't have a leg to stand on and was just repeating it isn't FAIR, it isn't FAIR...two letters for you T.S!!! Peterson is just a money puppet for some rich SOB that has land in ND and can't hunt it the first week!! Also, a HUGE thanks to Mr. Mazahari-sp, for his keeping with this issue and letting Mr. Peterson in on more facts than he is aware of...THANK YOU GUYS!! The sportsmen and women of ND owe you two a very large cold one for your efforts!! :beer: 
Let's give'em hell boys!! 
Start E-mailing our GOV. our ATTY GENERAL and the NDG&F and let them know where we stand!!

H2OfowlND


----------



## tumblebuck

H20,

Can you explain a little more? Was this radio? KFGO?

Would love to read the transcript.


----------



## Eric Hustad

Couldn't agree more about Randy this morning on News and Views. I only caught the last 20 minutes and missed Mark, but was really impressed with the way Randy K. spoke about the issue. He can represent my point of view anytime. It really is too bad that it has gotten to this point, however one starts to see this as a threat to a way of life. I hate to see people locked out hunting here, but at the same time I don't want to lose what we have in ND and the chance to pass this on to our children. Will be interesting to see how this all ends up.....


----------



## racer66

Yep, Randy definitely put him in his place, I listened to the whole thing and was also very impressed. By the time it was done, all Peterson could say was it wasn't fair.


----------



## racer66

While goose hunting last year with my 8 and 9 year old boys (9 year olds first year hunting with his new 20 gauge) they asked me how goose hunting used to be when I was growing up. I sadly told them that they would probably never see that kind of hunting. I grew up and still live here in NW North Dakota and started hunting at 9 years old in 1978 and they are all memories now. Hunting lodge in this area is gobbling land at a fast pace, posted signs all over the place.


----------



## Fetch

Randy would make a Excellent G&F Director - Probably should have got it last time - More reasons to get Politicians out of G&F Business


----------



## MRN

Thanks Dan,

As much as anything, this whole thing is a PR war. We have to make sure everyone knows the facts, not just their emotional response.

Is it wrong to say (simply) that the Commerce Clause allows the Feds to make some rules, which they did in the Lacey Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and which ND is following?

Simple, to the facts?

Any other law which says ND can't make such regulations?

M.


----------



## old dl guy

Its amazing to me to listen and read all the rhetoric from both sides of this issue. Both sides have an agenda and both sides believe they are right. Who ultimately ends up losing in this whole battle between MN and ND. Can anyone see the forest through the trees? Both sides need to calm down a bit and realize this issue is very knee jerk and very political for the players on both sides. The sportsman in both states are being whipped up by their legislators who want to get elected more than they want to save wildlife and preserve nature. If this does not stop, the hatred between the states will reach stupid levels and what good can ever come from that? The cycle of wildlife will change, it always does, and the ducks, geese and pheasants will not occupy the skies as much as they do right now. Then what?........this whole stupid issue will suddenly seem like a non issue, but the damage will be done and the scars will be there for many many more years to come. This is bigger than a couple ducks flying over the slough for two months out of the year, its about respecting each other and respecting nature. How can the sports of hunting and fishing survive if the participants cannot even get along across state lines. Do we really want the future of fish and game decided by a collection of lawyers who have political motives. Lawyers, who if they ever set foot in the outdoors is with a guide showing them where to walk. Tell me how this helps wildlife longterm.....?...Can anyone do that......? Look deep inside and ask yourself, how does this really helps things. Look 10 years down the road. Okay,,,maybe you get more opportunities to hunt, but you will probably loose oppurtunities to fish out of state. You say....fine with that i will just fish here, but when will it stop? Are landowers in Mn not going to sell lakeshore to North Dakota people, are MN business not going to relocate a business here eventhough the taxes and wages are less. Folks... we need as many people involved in these sports as we can, they buy the stamps, they buy the licenses and they buy the state land we hunt on. We all make this engine work, we all need each other for our sports survival. If you want to know what will happen when lawyers get involved and are politically motivated. Look no farther than to our friends to the north. The gun laws enacted by the East coast legislators and lawyers who have never even shot a weapon have made resident hunting almost none existent in their great country. The numbers are so low, that some people in the provinces say that resident hunting will not even exist in 20 years. Doesn't that bother anyone here who is so worked up about this issue. The only people that really hunt in Canada in any numbers are the non residents that make the trek there each year. The non residents are saving hunting in Canada right now!........ If this lawsuit does go ahead......it will be the end of hunting as we have all known it to be...it will never be the same. Do we have a very good chance of losing this case....YES....a very good chance....You pick and choose your battles in life, it this really a battle that we want to wage. Its a good case the MN attorney general has here. He has made the big HMO's in MN buckle to their knees and this seems a lot less complicated of an issue to win. I hope that calmer and less selfish heads can find some sense and stop bickering about this. I hope.....!


----------



## djleye

Old DL guy, You say that we all need to work together and then in the same breath you say that we should just give in to what we are working so hard to avoid. We have tried to meet others halfway and that has gotten us nowhere(we give an inch and a mile is taken!!). If my kids don't have a place to hunt when they wnt to hunt it will be partly my fault for not doing everything I can to continue our heritage. I am sorry but I cannot lookhim in the eye ina few years and say we just gave in, we thought it would take care of itself, sorry, you can shoot clay pigeons but not hunt birds anymore. To me, that is unacceptable!!. Sorry.


----------



## mallard

Wheather this law suit wins or looses,the MN hunters are still going to loose.I talked to a landowner friend today and he said that the law suit was a heated discussion in the local cafe today.It sounds like no MN hunters are welcome any more in the area I hunt.I think that Dux-n-Bux knows of one of the land owners,he owns over 20 sections and was really PO'd.Most of the landowners in that area could care less about the NR issues before,but are steaming mad right now.I guess that there is no better way to unite North Dakotans than have another state try to tell us how we should run ours by litigation.


----------



## Field Hunter

Hey Old,

I can see your points...I think. It seems there is an underlying purpose to your post. The MN attourney general has a good point?...I don't think so. If this all boiled down to the nuts and bolts I think you'd find that there are a few big $$$ guys that are behind it and I think there may be guys from both sides of the border. Are there emotions flying on this issue...you bet! Should ND just lay down and bend to the wishes of another state because the elected officials are up for re-election? No. Should the state of MN threaten the hunting for all by bringing a law suit. I don't think they should do that either.

If they win this suit there are going to be many more outfitters and a lot less freelancing by both resident and NR hunters. There just won't be enough quality land available to the masses that will flood the state in the Fall. Some of you guys that say you never see another hunter in the Fall, well that will become a thing of the past.

Anyway, you seem to have a handle on what everyone is doing wrong on this issue but what exactly do you think the sportsmen in ND should do to respond. Anything?


----------



## 870 XPRS

mallard said:


> Wheather this law suit wins or looses,the MN hunters are still going to loose.I talked to a landowner friend today and he said that the law suit was a heated discussion in the local cafe today.


Sounds about right, i've had conversation off and on all day with a few land owners in dickey/lamoure counties. These are not small time farms either. In the past these landowners primarily posted their land a few weeks before deer season and allowed all the waterfowl and upland hunting anybody wanted, including NRs. PO'd would be an understatement from a few of these guys. The exact words out of one of their mouths was that every acre is going to be posted now. It's just not a good situation any which way you look at it.


----------



## mburgess

I have been quiet about the MN whining for the whole year even though I have had my own opinion. Now their politicians have gone way too far! It isn't about migratory species or non-migratory game. I'm a republican and always have been, but if our government caves on this the republican party in ND has lost my vote and my wifes, fathers, mothers, brothers, etc. vote for ever. The whole idea of some other states politicians pushing us around makes me sick. You give them this for migratory game and it just opens up a can of worms for non-migratory species. I've just had it!!! :******: Give someone an inch and they will take a mile and this is true! State sportsmen have to have a statewide conference asap. We need to do our own lobbying. No emails, no letters. If it comes to chaos on the front steps of the capitol building so be it. I've had it! I know an awful lot of landowners and I will do my best to make sure every hunter with a MN plate is rejected all year long. Even if it means money out of my pocket. It sure would be nice if Minnesotan's would quit their *****ing and work on improving their habitat that has gone to hell. So what if I can't fish one of their 10,000 lakes, I guess I'll keep my money in my states economy and fish on Sakakawea or Oahe. I'm fed up with MN, I'm going to a Timberwolves game this weekend and cheering for the Lakers. I'll never cheer for anything in MN again, I hope to hell Red McCombs pulls the Vikes and moves to SA so I can listen to them ***** about something else!!!! I used to be a die hard twins fan but the Yankees have ruined that because the twins will never win a World Series again. I hope the twins contract in the future too, so the f---ing MN economy plummets! MN have fun trying to hunt in the south central part of the state this year. I hope you guys have to pay $400 a gun for some outfitter per day and the forcast for the weekend is sunshine and 60 degrees!!!


----------



## old dl guy

Just be as passionate about the sport as a whole as you are about keeping your claim to your resident land. I have seen alot in my years and the one thing i have seen more and more each year, is the gap between certain hunters growing wider each and every year. We now have Delta people fighting with DU people, states fighting against states. Its getting worse every year. The sport is losing members every year and has for some time. What to do, i think we need to direct our efforts at the commercial operations and their mass leasing of land. Don't take a goal to eliminate them, just restrict them as we seek to restrict the NR. Not just talk about it, but really make a united effort at letting our legislators know that is is unacceptable and won't be tollerated anymore. I think this issue is really the core of what is driving a wedge between Res and NR hunters, which is getting deeper and beginning to extend to non hunters in non-hunting areas of the state. It rather easy to say that NR are the problem, its politically safe for the legislators to make laws that restrict them, but its more difficult to address are own house and correct what is wrong within.


----------



## Dan Bueide

odlg, I also hear ya to a point, but I have a number of questions for you. In your long experience of living in and hunting ND, have you before just the past few years seen:

1. 400 licensed hunting outfitters/guides in ND?

2. Single outfitters controlling more than 150,000 acres?

3. Almost 1/2 of all total waterfowl hunters as NR's, which means more hunting outside of weekends and less rest for the birds, driving them elsewhere?

4. The degree of lockouts (not posting, but lockouts) currently created by the amount of buy/lease just for hunting.

5. The majority of waterfowlers chasing one type - ducks.

What's going on today isn't like the past, where droughts or wicked winters will correct all the way back. Sure, those events may cause some relief, temporarily, but the trend to full and final commercialization is here to stay if we don't stop it in its tracks.

Chill out, sit back, relax, everything will be fine? No way.


----------



## old dl guy

Dan,

There is no doubt the stress on waterfowl is greater now than it has been.....probably ever. We are more mobile and more linked to each other than we have ever been. The waterfowl are targeted from technologically equipped hunters from Canada to Arkansas. It is frustrating to have someone take away your opportunity in a certain place with a posted sign, but when its 10 sections its a bit out of whack. I think you have understood what the real problem is, the commercial operations. I don't advocate laying down and giving in to the NR issue, i just think causing a bitter feud between two states will do nothing but hurt each other in the end. I think this state should have addressed the real problem, the commercial operations and worked on that first rather than shooting a cannon across the bow of MN's boat. The path often traveled is the one of least resistance and the NR were the easiest target. I will say this again and as much as some of you don't want to admit, but we need Mn, Ia, Wi etc...sportsman as much as they need us. If you don't understand what i mean when i say that,,,,you haven't understood what hunting is all about and how important it is to preserve it for the next generation.


----------



## Fetch

DL O G - that is exactly what the commercial folks in all this hope for - they have been manipulating things for along time - only the past few yrs have we Residents Hunters finally saying enough is enough

It is time for us to get Mad As you know what & do something - Join the two orgs Dick posted about (I'm going to for sure ) yeah write & say what you think - but I don't find that to be very effective (I seriously don't think they listen to traditional good citizen views anymore) & hope it will all go away :******:

Many of us use this forum to try to keep folks fired up APATHY is terrible in things like this - It sure seems those that do not understand everything or have special interests keep trying to build momentum for their goals

We need things like this to get ND Hunters more aware & involved - If they want a Fight & do things like this, they deserve to get it back & then some (for a change) I don't get this were against NR BS we are against NR's that want to ruin ND slowly, a little at a time. It is Now Very Political & if dirty politics is the only way I say we have alot to learn to catch up & even then someone has to be extreme in order to reach middle ground --- If we just feel bad & have faith in our elected officials we will slowly get to the point that very few Residents will hunt & how sad it will be to think we should have got angry & really nipped this stuff when we had 1/2 a chance :******: & going to stay that way !!!


----------



## DuckBuster

Unfortunatly, this is starting to feel like the end of hunting like I've known it. (I've had far fewer experinces than most People on this site.) The lawsuit is nothing other than completly crazy. As a NR contributing member of this site, I've watched how attitudes have changed over the last several months. It's very frustrating to hear about upset landowners and resident hunters. (although I understand why). I only hope that the actions of Hatch and Peterson do not destroy hunting/fishing for all. Other than sending E-mails and making phone calls to these clowns, whatelse can the "reasonble" NR do to help? Anything on your side of the border? Call your Gov.? (Not that our opinion would even matter). Like I've read on several other posts- Today, I'm ashamed to be from MN. If only I could get my wife to move...


----------



## Rangers

You all act so surprised and shocked that it has come to this lawsuit. The attitudes expressed on these pages on the NR issue are the nucleus that drives it forward.

Old Dl guy, most of the sportsman on this page don't want to see more hunters getting involved their sport, that might diminish their ability to get'em before the other guy.

Hunting is not a competition, at least it didn't use to be.


----------



## Old Hunter

DuckBuster There are a lot of guys from Minn. that understand what is happening to ND hunting. There are Minn guys coming this weekend to hunt with ND guys from this site. You know that we are trying to save something for average Joe whether he be a resident or nonresident. good luck


----------



## Old Hunter

Rangers You are wrong. Most of the people on this site want to see as many nonresident hunters as possible without destroying the resource.


----------



## mntrapper

Well I think it is a very bad thing that both states are doing.

Here are just a few thoughts on my part.

I dont really think is was in North Dakotas best interest in the first part to put a restriction on the number of NR to hunt waterfowl in a economic type of way but I do understand why they did it. Some then compare that Minnesota does not allow NR to hunt moose but I think that is in a league of its own. Moose is a very limited animal in MN compared to waterfowl. It takes a long time for a resident to get a licence and then it is only a once in a lifetime permit too even if you do not shoot a moose.

I really think this is just the beginning of all the bickering between these states and SD. They had said if they win this in ND, SD would be next.
If they do not win I really would not be surprised if they State(MN) will do something with fishing regs for NR. It has already been brought up.
I know fishing is about the only thing that ND come to MN for and some do to go deer hunting but not too many. There are alot of ND who own a cabin around Bemiji and west of there.

I really think it is all very foolish what everyone is doing.


----------



## Fetch

was it real windy everywhere in Nodak today ??? sure was here

You don't suppose that old saying is true about why it's so windy in ND :roll: After today I think it is :eyeroll:


----------



## Brad Anderson

I'm with old hunter on this one. It isn't the average Joe we're afraid of, it is the rich NR who leases up ALL the land.

It will get to a point where hunting becomes a RICH mans sport, if nothing is done to prevent the current dilemma. I really don't care if NR come to ND to hunt, just don't commercialize the hunting experience.

Paying to hunt is weak.


----------



## Eric Hustad

I agree also DuckBuster. I don't hold anything against people from Minnesota bringing their kids and experiencing hunting here. As a kid it changed my life and taught me an new appreciation of the outdoors, and I wouldn't want this denied to anyone.


----------



## GOOSEBELLY

I sit here and read all the post about nd residents being mad over this lawsuit and it really scares me! I have hunted in nd and sd for years and spent alot of my money in your communities.I scratch together every cent I can to enjoy the outdoors,I'm not made of money and can't afford to lease your land.and now I even am afraid of hunting anywhere in nd because of backlash, I AM NOT FOR THE LAWSUIT AT ALL! I love hunting and fishing every chance I get and I follow each states law and rules.So now do I have to be afraid of where I park my truck in fear it might be shot up or something,people laugh but some guys on here sound like they could do it.I just want to hunt thats it.Now that you see I am from mn I have a big bullseye on my but.Thats just wrong we are not all the same some of us have repect for our bordering states please dont lable all of us.So when I come hunting this weekend i am the guy in the marroon ford pu with mn plates and A WATERFOWL HEART!PLEASE ENJOY THE OUTDOORS AND BE SAFE.THANK YOU


----------



## gaddyshooter

This lawsuit is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard of. Trying to sue a neighboring state to tell them how to set their hunting seasons and licence prices. Whatever Judge gets this on their desk hopefuly will be smart enough to toss it out.
Every state has season restrictions for out of state hunters and fisherman, and out of state hunting/fishing licenses are always more expensive than resident licenses. That is the way it is and the way it should be. That is part of being a resident. That is why when I want to go fishing in Missouri during the summer, I pay 5 dollars a day for fising license and the same reason I spend a 100 dollars in the fall to go duck hunting in ND. I don't live in those states so I expect to pay more than the people who live there. Same as the people who want to come hunt big buck country here in Illinois have to pay the out of state hunting license fee. Maybe I should just get a lawyer to sue Missiouri so I can pay what a Missouri resident pays for a fishing license. How F g ridiculous.


----------



## njsimonson

Thank you Gandergrinder.

This is more than just a SUPPLY and DEMAND situation. ECON 101 is not going to solve this problem Duey.


----------



## callmecrazy

i told myself i was done on this board, but here goes one more.

is anyone aware of the fact that a lawsuit is what was recommended by the USFWS as the way to resolve the issues surrounding use of migaratory bird resource? when the USFWS was asked what could be done to make the use of a FEDERALY managed resource more equitable they said to get it into federal court. now we're the evil s.o.b's? maybe some of the fall out should go to USFWS as well. maybe even stop taking their duck stamp $$$ to use for improvements to your state? maybe go renegade and refuse to follow USFWS regulations? maybe pass a law (similar to your spearing law) that says any NR from a state that has sued ND, or anyone who works for USFWS, is prohibited from hunting in ND?


----------



## Bubba

mallard said:


> Wheather this law suit wins or looses,the MN hunters are still going to loose.I talked to a landowner friend today and he said that the law suit was a heated discussion in the local cafe today.It sounds like no MN hunters are welcome any more in the area I hunt.


Dumb question???? Why would the landowners, (landowner/farmers- not someone who owns their own little chunck that's probably been and always will be off limits to others) be steamed about this?


----------



## Ripline

It's an assault on the State Of North Dakota and their rights as Citizens of their State by the parasitic State of MN who do nothing but think of themselves. Filing a Federal lawsuit over a lousy week of closed hunting is nothing but a frivolous lawsuit that will have deep longlasting affects on how people of MN are viewed.
By the way, my Uncle just finished posting 640 acres of prime deer hunting land in WI that he has allowed fifteen MN tresspassers to hunt for the last 15 years without asking permission. NO LONGER.
Congratulations MN for screwing up a real good thing. You will get what you truely deserve!!!


----------



## Goldy's Pal

callmecrazy said:


> a lawsuit is what was recommended by the USFWS as the way to resolve the issues surrounding use of migaratory bird resource? when the USFWS was asked what could be done to make the use of a FEDERALY managed resource more equitable they said to get it into federal court.


All I gotta say is if the USFWS and the Minn. state capitol Fu^%&&**up my ND duck hunting, I know where I'll stick the next damn coot I shoot. 8).


----------



## DCOYNUT

I believe that the Minnesota hunters and fishermen brought this upon themselves. When you go to minnesota how many lakes of importance to wildlife are not surrounded by cabins? One thing that is important to wildlife is lack of human development of their habitat.

Is it really thought by minnesota residents, that by preventing us from fishing on opener, that we are really going to mind?? I think that if this is going to be a battle of counterpoints we should all just hunt and fish our own states. I will stop paying property taxes in the lakes country and just drift back to good old ND......

Waterfowl takes work to get going.. just look at the revival of the canada goose. Miracles happen with the help of the DNR. Get it going and get out.


----------



## MResner

It seems it may be time for another NoDak politician in the mold of "Wild Bill". When Minnesota tried to bully us in Langer's time, he made 'em pay! He fired up the citizens of his home state and cost the Minnesota COMMERCIAL INTERESTS big bucks. Minnesota is bullying again, and its time to stand up for ourselves. Do we have a politician in this state who has what it takes???


----------



## Dan Bueide

cmc, if the USFWS told you the only way to fix your headache was to jump off a bridge, would you? That the USFWS indicated they had no ability to influence these issues should tell you who has the bulk of responsibility for resource management decisions of game within a state's borders, migratory or not.


----------



## KEN W

Callme...The USFW service is passing the buck...they are controlled by the Dept. of Interior...which can make any laws they want when it comes to migratory waterfowl...like limits,season dates,shooting hours,number of shells in a gun,cost of a duck stamp,baiting,use of e-caller,predation killing,etc.

The constitution says that anything not done by the feds,can be done by the states....SO if they wanted to eliminate all non-res. restrictions,they could since we are talking about migratory waterfowl.

Of course the local farmer will have the most to say about it.

If the Dept of Interior does not allow ND to open the season the fourth weekend in Sept like the past 2 years due to liberal rules ...we will all open on Oct. 2...which would make this lawsuit not applicable,since the basis for it seems to be that we get to hunt 1 week earlier.


----------



## callmecrazy

dcoynut,
your post is unbelievably ridiculous! you state that Mn hunters and fisherman have themselves to blame because how many lake of significance do you see with cabins all around them. then you say that we should just all hunt and fish our own state. you will stop paying property taxes in lakes country and drift back to good ole ND. i take this to mean that you own property in MN? how then are you not part of our problem?how are you any different than the MN guy that buys property in ND? why shouldnt MN do things to discourage the land grab taking place in northern MN, in which prices of land have increased 5 fold in 10 years much as you are doing in ND? to discourage the crowding taking place on many lakes? to deal with the pressure increase not just in anglers but from technology such as gps, underwater cameras etc.? if the motives behind these bills and lawsuits are wrong so be it...but if it brings MN sportsmen to the realization that its time to protect what we have for the citizens of MN i'm not going to be mad about what brought it about. and if its easier to attempt a bill such as the one proposed, if its made to be the least painfull as possible to the powerful commercial resort lobby in MN, then again i'm not going to be mad. it needs to start somewhere. maybe if the powerful resort lobby decides they werent hurt to bad by this proposal they will be more open to future ideas. i find it sad and somewhat telling of some peoples true motives when they constantly throw out the "protect our hunting from commercializtion" speil then relish in the fact that commercial interests may stop MN from trying to start to improve what they have and deal with the issues they face.


----------



## Bagman

Excerpts from todays Fargo Fishwrap...can it get more absurd...$70 a FRIGGIN WEEK???

Retaliation was a major theme for the Senate game and fish subcommittee considering a bill reacting to North Dakota's restrictions on nonresident hunters.

The bill's author said she wants to use it to force the two states back to the negotiating table. Sen. Pat Pariseau, R-Farmington, said she hopes North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven relaxes restrictions the state adopted in 2003.

On Wednesday night, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty gave his support to Pariseau's bill after earlier urging Minnesotans not to retaliate.

Pariseau's bill applies to states -- like North Dakota and South Dakota -- that restrict nonresident hunting privileges. It forbids residents of those states from fishing the first two weeks of Minnesota's fishing season. The proposal also would tack a $10 surcharge on fishing licenses and require a $70-a-week permit on boats used for hunting or fishing.

Out-of-state residents who stay in Minnesota hotels, motels and resorts would be exempt.

That means North Dakotans who own cabins in Minnesota, as well as those who live in places such as Fargo and Grand Forks -- who make day trips to Minnesota fishing holes -- would be most affected if the bill becomes law.


----------



## gandergrinder

Ha ha ha. This is so fun. :eyeroll: Why don't we just play into the resort industry even more. :eyeroll:


----------



## callmecrazy

Bagman,
heres a copy of the bills text.

dont see anything about a $70 fee, but now that you've mentioned it it isnt a bad idea. 
No. 1823, as introduced: 83rd Legislative Session (2003-2004) Posted on Feb 5, 2004

1.1 A bill for an act 
1.2 relating to natural resources; making fishing licenses 
1.3 issued to nonresidents who are domiciled in certain 
1.4 states invalid for game fish species during the first 
1.5 14 days of the fishing season; amending Minnesota 
1.6 Statutes 2002, section 97A.411, subdivision 1. 
1.7 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: 
1.8 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2002, section 97A.411, 
1.9 subdivision 1, is amended to read: 
1.10 Subdivision 1. [LICENSE PERIOD.] (a) Except as provided in 
1.11 paragraphs (b), (c), and (d), and (e), a license is valid during 
1.12 the lawful time within the license year that the licensed 
1.13 activity may be performed. A license year begins on the first 
1.14 day of March and ends on the last day of February. 
1.15 (b) A license issued under section 97A.475, subdivision 6, 
1.16 clause (5), 97A.475, subdivision 7, clause (2), (3), (5), or 
1.17 (6), or 97A.475, subdivision 12, clause (2), is valid for the 
1.18 full license period even if this period extends into the next 
1.19 license year, provided that the license period selected by the 
1.20 licensee begins at the time of issuance. 
1.21 (c) When the last day of February falls on a Saturday, an 
1.22 annual resident or nonresident fish house or dark house license, 
1.23 including a rental fish house or dark house license, obtained 
1.24 for the license year covering the last day of February, is valid 
1.25 through Sunday, March 1 and the angling license of the fish 
1.26 house licensee is extended through March 1. 
2.1 (d) A lifetime license issued under section 97A.473 or 
2.2 97A.474 is valid during the lawful time within the license year 
2.3 that the licensed activity may be performed for the lifetime of 
2.4 the licensee. 
2.5 (e) A license issued under section 97A.474, subdivision 2, 
2.6 or 97A.475, subdivision 7, to a person who is domiciled in a 
2.7 state or province that prohibits Minnesota residents from taking 
2.8 game fish or small game during a part of the season that is open 
2.9 to residents of that state is not valid for taking game fish 
2.10 during the first 14 days of the season prescribed under section 
2.11 97C.395, subdivision 1, paragraph (a), clause (1). 
2.12 Sec. 2. [EFFECTIVE DATE.] 
2.13 Section 1 is effective the day following final enactment.

here is a copy of the darkhouse spearing law from ND's fishing regs
15. DARK HOUSE SPEAR FISHING
Dark house spear fishing is legal only from December 1 through February 28 of each fishing year.

Dark house spear fishing is legal for all residents having a valid fishing license and for residents who are under the age of 16. Nonresidents may dark house spear fish in North Dakota if the nonresident's state provides the same privilege for residents of North Dakota.

no wonder none of you choose to comment on my ?'s concerning this fact. a little case of the pot calling the kettle black??


----------



## Perry Thorvig

I am a bit embarrassed that it has taken me so long to weigh in on this topic. I've been a little busy. Here is a letter that I just sent to the Minneapolis Star Tribune and Attorney General Mike Hatch.

"I was shocked when I saw that Minnesota's Attorney General Mike Hatch had filed a lawsuit against North Dakota for the way it chooses to regulate its hunting seasons. What arrogance! My first reaction, as one who has hunted North Dakota for almost 30 years and followed this issue for the last several years, was that the lawsuit would cause a terrible backlash against Minnesotans who hunt in North Dakota.

Sure enough, it has already started. North Dakota's talk radio, coffee shops, and hunting websites are full of chatter about Minnesotans trying to impose their will on North Dakota. They don't like the arrogance of Minnesota's public officials. Nor do I. Nothing gets folks upset more than having someone from someplace else tell them how to carry on their business.

As a result, farmers, who were once ambivalent about the presence of non-resident hunters, are now saying that their fields will be posted. Only residents will get a chance to hunt when they seek permission. Those of us who have hunted there in the past will feel sheepish about driving into the farmyard displaying our Minnesota license plates. It is likely we won't get permission to hunt! So, what have we gained by a lawsuit?

Those folks in North Dakota are not trying to save hunting opportunities just for themselves. They are trying to save hunting opportunities for all of us by limiting the number of guides and outfitters and the amount of land they lease for themselves and their paying clients. Hunting land open to the freelance hunter and his kids is disappearing at an astonishing rate primarily due to the outfitters making it for-pay hunting only.

Unfortunately, regulating the number of non-resident hunters is the only way the state can get at the outfitters. There are just too many ways that the outfitters can evade regulations. They are making it tough on the local and non-resident hunters. How many can afford $250 a day for land access to hunt? That's the going rate with a lot of outfitters. That is not the same as paying $30 for a round of golf. They want big bucks and only the rich are able to afford it. The rest of us average income hunters (both resident and non-resident), and our kids, are out of luck.

North Dakota's regulations are not really a hardship on Minnesotans. Any, true, prepared waterfowler who wants a license in North Dakota can get it. They make it so easy with Internet online licensing access and credit card payments. It is only the unprepared, last minute guy who decides, after September 15th that he wants to go hunting in North Dakota, who may not get a license. Plan ahead and there is no problem.

So, Mr. Hatch, please drop your lawsuit. You have done enough damage already! Even if you win, we hunters in Minnesota lose."


----------



## Bert

Can anybody tell me how many NRs use GOs in ND?
What is that like in proportion to how many NRs freelance in ND.
5%? 10%?
Does anybody have numbers on how many ND residents use GOs. (Gotta be a few).
You guys make it sound like every other hunter that crosses the Red ends up in the arms of an outfitter.
Real hunters dont need guides? Im betting that 90% of NRs in your state would agree with you. I do wholeheartedly. In the hunting circles I travel in, I dont know of a guy who either has the money or lack of self respect to use a guide.
The dirty end of the stick is that the 10% (or whatever...Id like to know) Laughs at your regs because it doesnt affect them. They have the money and probably only hunt 2 weeks a year. The 90% (or whatever...Id like to know, whom many of you claim to have no beef with) are the ones taking it on the chin.
By the way... Moose dont migrate unless they have a brain worm.


----------



## Bert

GP
Just out of curiosity, how would you propose anyone wave a magic wand and get more ducks winging through Minnesota? Dont get me wrong, Id love to see it too, but everybody seems to say the same thing, we need more ducks but nobody has a nuts and bolts idea of how to do that.
There are tons of incentives to reclaim wetlands... hell, you can make money doing it.
How much money got thrown at Lake Christina in the last decade to get rid of carp only to have them come back like nothing ever happened?
Do you realize how fast Western Minnesota is getting developed?
I see what used to be prime duck country now ringed with houses. How is the state supposed to fix that?
The state of Minnesota didnt "F" up your hunting in either state. Population and commerce did it for you in Minnesota and a handful of ND residents did it for you out there.


----------



## Brad Anderson

Very insightful Bert. A creature of your own demise. Thats what we're trying not to do in ND.


----------



## MRN

Returning to factual basis of the suit for moment:

Peterson claims:
"What I really have a problem with is the migratory birds of this country belong to all of the people of the United States," Peterson said. "They do not belong to the people in North Dakota."

Beautiful rhetoric, but is this claim true?



> ND Century Code: 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. ...... The state has a property interest in all protected wildlife.


(ducks are a protected species under the MBTA)

Does anyone have the text of the suit? Does that get posted anywhere?

M


----------



## Matt Jones

Well Bert, for one you could get some habitat on the ground in MN. 100,000 acres of CREP would help I bet. Oh wait, Colin Peterson (the same guy behind this lawsuit with Hatch) is trying his damnest to kill CREP because he is a puppet of the AG industry. It's amazing how fast people have forgot that now that he's put his name on this lawsuit...must be a coincidence I guess. Or maybe it's just bull**** politics???

But the main thing is Peterson is trying to get you more access to ND so I guess that means he's a friend to the sportsman of MN. :roll:

There's a lot of things that could be done to improve the habitat and hunting in MN...

For starters, QUIT WORRYING ABOUT NORTH DAKOTA!!!

I don't see how in the hell worrying about ND is going to do anything to help out MN. Maybe I'm blind here but I just don't see the connection between how securing access to ND is going to improve the hunting and habitat in MN. :roll:

Maybe that's the problem, the priorities of most MN sportsman are ***-backwards. If you guys made this much noise over habitat issues think of what could be accomplished. Instead you let the AG company puppets veer your attention elsewhere and you end up losing on both ends.


----------



## Bubba

If it's such a big problem. Why not make the person declare on the license application that they are using a G/O and limit those types of licenses instead of banging all N/R? Or designate only a set number of licenses to each G/O per year to sell along with having to state the dates, in advance, that these licenses are going to be used. Why not lower the limit on ducks? Why not have a shorter season? Won't all these methods "preserve" your resource? And, no disrespect intended but the "it's for the children and future generations" argument is B.S. in my opinion. No one can tell what the future is going to bring, you may dry up and have to show the kids pictures of what once was. On the other hand you may have ten-fold what you have now and wish you were young again yourself. Mother Nature is going to give you what she wants and any form of "preservation" now isn't going to make a bit of difference. Therefore the current arguments going on now are "ME" induced, "I WANT" led, and "IT'S MINE" argued, IMO, (on which I might add, I'm an expert)!


----------



## Dan Bueide

Bert, when the quality of hunting (considering all of the factors that yield "quality hunting") becomes as mediocre in ND as it has in MN, where are MN residents going to insist they have the right to hunt unrestricted next? Montana, Sask., Alberta?

This still strikes me as the ultimate form of arrogance and nothing more than a state exerting the mentality of colonization.

Is MN going to start checking the acceptance records for the UND aerospace and NDSU pharmacy programs to make sure MN res candidates are getting their "fair share" too? If ND can't favor its residents in managing its hunting resources, it isn't a very far stretch to say that ND can't favor its residents when it comes to collegie admission policies either.

Since the beginning of time, people have weighed choices, opportunities and downsides when choosing where to call home. For many of us here, a quality hunting resource plays heavy into that decision. Keeping and drawing residents to ND because of this is good for ND. Giving it away for so many years and creating the "right" in some peoples minds to continued near unfettered use, it turns out, is not so good. Think that's why ND always bears the brunt even though SD is much more restrictive and has been for a long time. We've given away the milk too long - maybe its time to start trying to sell some cows.

Go ahead, mess with the MN fishing deal whichever way you guys think is best. If MN fishing is that important to me (which it is not), I'll move a few miles East. But do yourselves a favor, make the careful and conscious decision of picking retaliation or bettering things for MN sportspersons as your goal when you make your fishing adjustments. When you're going through all the hoopla and efforts to get these fishing adjustments made, try to do so in a way that's going to create a real and better difference for MN sportspersons at home. ND can and will understand that, and the future ND hunting adjustments will also be made on that basis (mark my words - the stuff in the ND hopper already will be called "retaliation" when becoming public). You can get your pound of flesh AND better at-home opportunites, if you choose. But if what's done is only for retaliatory purposes, this thing could get real ugly.

And let's cover this one more time. O/g's play a big part of this. For a variety of reasons and limitations, there likely here to stay - just hope we can prevent them from taking over the whole deal. Their presence makes it harder to accept the number of non-pay hunters (yes, about 95% of all hunters) ND could tolerate if o/g wasn't here or as big as it is. BUT, even if there wasn't a single o/g and every square inch in ND was open to hunting, we can't take the kind of hunter numbers we've had recently and expect anyone to experience consistent quality hunting. As the southern states are finding out too, and I know this is going to be a shocker, ducks don't like to get chased incessantly, and will vote with their wings to a place where they don't. The number of hunters, with a greater mix of nr's who hunt even when most res don't, is also a problem in and of itself.


----------



## Rangers

Old Hunter, are you reading the same posts I am on this page. I just don't get that warm fuzzy " come on over" feeling you seem to think is there. 
Even if this is just a publicity stunt by politicians, it is certainly bringing the subject to light for people unaware. The backlash is now starting to surface in weekly mags, in the form of letters to the editor, not only talking about NR cabin owners, but also NR campers leasing up camp sites for the whole season. I am surprised it took this long.

This is just the flavor of the moment, I bet things calm down in a few months, but should make for some real intersting reading in the near future.


----------



## Goldy's Pal

Well I see my last post against my own states actions didn't survive the forum too long. :lol: Oh well. Bert, if you think this lawsuit is a good thing for your ND hunting then so be it. I'm done beating my head against the same wall. :eyeroll:


----------



## smalls

Mr. Cwazy,

Sorry no one responded to your spearing question. First, that is ND imposing ND will within ND borders. HUGE difference to the Minnesota law suit.

Second, spearing is being deemed fairly detrimental to the smaller lakes that are open to it, wouldn't surprise me if the scope of the season is narrowed to only larger lakes. We have been going through the equivalent of "experimental" spearing seasons.

Lastly, I don't like the way it's worded. Like I said in another post, Minnesota doesn't have a monopoly on dumb ideas, this is one of ND's. My opinion is to close spearing on all but our biggest lakes and if you want to come to North Dakota to throw a fork into a slough shark, by all means be my guest. We will still take your money and not complain that you are taking up too much space on the ice at devil's lake. 

smalls


----------



## mallard

How well the visiting goose hunters are going to be welcomed by the farmers is going to be very interesting to say the least.At least in the area I hunt,there wont be any competition from MN hunters :beer: .


----------



## james s melson

This mess has the potential to loosen up the cap in SD. Friends that were lucky enough to get a license last season said there was hardly anyone hunting ducks, and the small ponds and fields were full of them. If SD took more NR's it would take some stress off this problem.


----------



## Dan Bueide

jms, yep, and for a while, more people will get to experience in SD what we had in ND just a short time ago. Soon, thereafter, however, the guys in Neb. will get the benefit, and so on........We really get after this thing right, the outfitters in TX, LA and Ark. can sell Oct. mallardand teal hunts.

For the first time ever, I plan to apply for a SD duck license this Fall. Plan to use it mid-to-late October. May as well hunt them where they are instead of where they ain't.


----------



## THE Snowman

I have no problem with this lawsuit, as long as Minnesota takes the lead and shows a "good faith" effort. Here is what I think they should do to demonstrate this:

1. Pass a trespass law exactly like North Dakota.

2. Open their fishing season on all Minnesota waters year round for all species. (Just like North Dakota does!)

3. Allow nonresidents to spear and to leave an icehouse out overnight.

4. Allow nonresidents to be eligible for their moose and elk drawings.

Once these changes have been made (I'm sure that it wouldn't take long since Minnesota is all for leveling the playing field) then I am sure it would be a cakewalk to get North Dakota to comply. Heck, just to show how fairminded I am, I won't even sue Minnesota to "get the ball rolling". I'll just say "Please?".

Pat Jilek

aka THE Snowman


----------



## mntrapper

Snowman

I think some of what you say should change here in MN

One is the spearing issue and icehouses. I dont know what the thinking is on the no NR can spear it is probably more just one of those older laws that can be changes as well as the ice house deal once again I dont know what the thinking is on that maybe they think someone from out of state would not beable to get the house off the lake in time.

But I think that NR should not be allowed to hunt moose and elk in the state because these are animals that the residents can only hunt once in a lifetime and some wait for many many years to get a permit. They also are not a migrating animal. One last thing the state has only had something like 4 hunts for elk in the state in the last 100 years not many here.

The issue of opening the season year round is kind of BS too I think. The biggest thing is there are alot more people in MN then ND and all of these people fishing for walleye during the spawning season would not be a good thing for the walleye population. The only things closed are walleye northern pike and bass.

I am not sure what ND tresspassing laws are but here in MN in the forested part of the state you can hunt any peice of land that is not posted. 5 years ago they tried the same thing with CRP but it did not last long too many complaints.

But as I had said before the whole deal is a bunch of BS I do not know why ND has the newer NR laws but people should just take what each states regs are a pay the money to hunt there or just shut up and dont ***** about it.

If SD did have a higher limit of NR licenses I think it would take off some pressure on ND

These are just a few thoughts on my part


----------



## Bubba

Bubba said:


> If it's such a big problem. Why not make the person declare on the license application that they are using a G/O and limit those types of licenses instead of banging all N/R? Or designate only a set number of licenses to each G/O per year to sell along with having to state the dates, in advance, that these licenses are going to be used. Why not lower the limit on ducks? Why not have a shorter season? Won't all these methods "preserve" your resource? And, no disrespect intended but the "it's for the children and future generations" argument is B.S. in my opinion. No one can tell what the future is going to bring, you may dry up and have to show the kids pictures of what once was. On the other hand you may have ten-fold what you have now and wish you were young again yourself. Mother Nature is going to give you what she wants and any form of "preservation" now isn't going to make a bit of difference. Therefore the current arguments going on now are "ME" induced, "I WANT" led, and "IT'S MINE" argued, IMO, (on which I might add, I'm an expert)!


WELL?????????


----------



## Brad Anderson

Got to remember everything goes in cycles, not just the stock market. Sure all the water will dry up in the next drought. Then we'll get a wet cycle like we had in the 90's. Nothing is for certain, thats for sure.

Anybody on this website is all for limiting commercial hunting. Just got to get the legislature on OUR side. Easier said than done.


----------



## Old Hunter

Bubba I really cant disagree much with your suggestions. I think most of what you suggest may happen. I like the idea concerning the G/O's . It would be like trying to put a collar on a weasel.


----------



## zogman

Perry,
Great letter! You are a well spoken young man. Would you also send that to the lady legislator who is sponsering all the dumb legislation on behalf of her husband and his buddies.


----------



## Fetch

& here [email protected] Devils Lake Chamber of Commerce


----------



## Duey

Why doen't any G/O chime in on this subject?

I just feel this is their business. They have family's to feed just like you and I do.

Everyone is more worried about what it will do their own hunting.

I do believe it IS more about econ 101 than people think.


----------



## Field Hunter

I was thinking the same thing. Amber where are you? Sitting this one out I guess. How about Mr. Cadrian. You've got to be lurking on this site once in a while. Sure would like to hear the G/Os take on this or are most of people right on the situation?


----------



## Field Hunter

Did anyone see the news tonight on the intervies today with NDs attourney general. I didn't catch it all but something about the possibility of having SD join in the lawsuit on NDs side in some way. Guess they might feel they are next if MN wins the suit against ND.


----------



## Eric Hustad

I was just reading the article in the Forum again and it did say something about charging $70.00 a week for boats used for hunting and fishing. Just doing the math if a person has a boat at their cabin from the middle of April to the middle of September the charge would be $1540.00. That is based off of keeping the boat in for 22 weeks. Am I reading this right because if I am this is getting pretty crazy. Anyway on with the debate.....


----------



## tumblebuck

I thought this was farily interesting. From Duluth (how did they get this)??? I'm sure most of the ND residents will recognize the last name. Wonder what Dad would have to say about this?

FARGO, N.D. - Minnesota hunters can argue about the restrictions they face across the Red River, or they can do as Russ Henegar did and move to North Dakota.

Henegar, a duck, goose and pheasant hunter, was born in North Dakota but lived in Moorhead, Minn., for 16 years. He shed his nonresident status in January 2002 and moved with his wife, Peggy, to across the river to Fargo.

Henegar, an assistant principal at Moorhead High School, said a longer waterfowl season was the main draw in moving back to North Dakota.

"I can say to myself 'I'm going to run out and shoot a few ducks on a Sunday,'" he said. "You can't do that as a nonresident because you have to plan everything ahead of time."

Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch filed a federal lawsuit this week against North Dakota over hunting laws that restrict seasons for nonresidents.

Tom Vesledahl of Moorhead doesn't like the limitations or the legal action.

"I kid my buddies over in Fargo that we're going to limit them to two five-day fishing permits," he said.

The former president of Clay County's Pheasants Forever chapter said he would prefer that the states settle the dispute out of court.

Mark Mazaheri, an avid bird hunter from Fargo, said Minnesota should devote its resources to improving its own hunting programs. North Dakota is only protecting its own resources, as most other states already do, Mazaheri said.

"They (Minnesota officials) have no business telling another state what to do," he said.

North Dakota's major restrictions passed the Legislature in 2003. They prevent nonresidents from starting their waterfowl hunting in North Dakota at the same time as residents, and limit the places visitors can hunt.

Brian Jernberg of Moorhead boycotted North Dakota land last fall and hunted only in Minnesota. He said several of his friends did the same.

"I hope it makes a point," Jernberg said.

Henegar, who waited until his two daughters graduated from high school to move to Fargo, said he can see both sides of the argument. He was born and raised in North Dakota and his late father, Dale, served as the state's Game and Fish Department commissioner.

Henegar said North Dakota's restrictions seem justified to support its resources.


----------



## DLT

I was encouraged by the Governor's statement that "...we will vigorously defend the lawsuit." For now, I'll take him at his word. My concern, however, is that North Dakota will not stay the course in defending our position. Already there are voices saying we should settle this matter by compromise. While I've usually considered compromise a desirable solution to a problem, I'm not positive this will serve North Dakota's best interest in this situation. Compromise is where each party surrenders something that it wants, or equitable concessions from each side. But what could/would Minnesota offer to us as an equitable concession? What is it of importance that we would want? It appears to me that a compromise in this matter will end up only one way; Minnesota will gain some of what they want, and North Dakota will lose some of what it has. Unless Minnesota definitely can prevail in this suit, I don't think we ought to "run for the hills" quite yet. And being a cabin owner in Minnesota, I may have more to lose than others. But I'll tell you this, I definitely would not trade our hunting resources for their fishing. "Dam the torpedos----full steam ahead".


----------



## Brad Anderson

The thing I don't understand is why it has to be ND vs. MN. Since when does NR mean only Minnesotans. ND is restricting all NR. People from WI, SD, MT, and every other state in the union are affected by the new regs.

This whole issue is getting old. Why can't we all just get along???


----------



## gaddyshooter

My two cents on this as a non resident, not from Minnesota. The polititians are just giving the sportsmen of Minn a bad name and are causing them more harm that good, as a lot of people on here have already mentioned it is going to cause land owners to post their land. There also seem to be a lot of Minnesota (i didn't say all so don't jump on me) residents also on here whining about restrictions and having to pay more and not being able to hunt the first week etc. Too freaking bad. You don't live there and you are only a GUEST in ND. You either want to hunt there bad enough to pay the out of state license cost or you don't. Pretty simple. Every state has resident and non resident hunting and fishing license costs. Why does Minnesota think it is that special that they should be able to go where ever they want to and be treated as a resident? Doesn't make any freakin sense. Once again, either shut up and pay for the license or stay home. Pretty simple it seems to me.


----------



## Bubba

I just wonder which little rich boy became offended and decided to get this suit going? Pawlenty and Hatch are not that dim in the upstairs, IMO they do quite well. There HAS to be someone else (with the $$$) that's pushing them on. And I also think that it'll never make it to court. It will somehow mysteriously get settled or dropped. I personally think it's a chess match with your Governor & Legislators to strike a compromise that will fit the smitten parties (money boys) wishes and then they'll all make it look like a big misunderstanding with the group hugs and so on uke:


----------



## tumblebuck

And yet more fuel for the file.

Here's the condensed version:

If Minnesotans want to talk about discrimination against nonresidents -- as Attorney General Mike Hatch claims they do in a lawsuit filed this week against North Dakota and its bird hunting regulations -- Ken Robb of Akron, Ohio, will be happy to join the conversation.

Robb's company, Akron Wholesale Live Bait, was busted by Minnesota Department of Natural Resources conservation officers in 2000 for transporting minnows through southern Minnesota on Interstate 90 after their legal purchase in South Dakota.

Anyone transporting minnows into or through Minnesota must have a DNR permit. Everyone agrees that the law was enacted by the Legislature in the 1960s for one reason and one reason only: to protect Minnesota minnow dealers from out-of-state competitors.

When Robb's driver was busted, the permit required to transport minnows through Minnesota cost about twice as much -- $675 -- as the same permit cost Minnesota minnow haulers.

Convicted in district court, Robb's company paid a fine of about $1,000.

*On appeal, however, the key charge against him -- failing to purchase the $675 permit -- was thrown out because the court found the disparate permit charges for residents and nonresidents to violate the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.*

*All of which is interesting, given that Hatch is claiming North Dakota violates the same clause by restricting when and where Minnesotans can hunt in that state.

Interesting as well is that it was Hatch's office that argued on appeal that Minnesota had the right to impose the different charges for the same permit, based on residency.*


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com

Here's a copy of the lawsuit:

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

FYI


----------



## james s melson

WOW, the guy moved ALL THE WAY from Moorhead to Fargo, what a sacrifice! The exodus has begun!


----------



## Dan Bueide

melson, let's assume the guy even only moderately changed his shopping habits when he moved, for things like groceries, gas, etc. Because of his new shopping patterns, and where his various tax payments now get sent (income, real estate, sales, gas, etc.), how many vacationing hunters would it take for ND to equal the economic benefit of this one guy (plus family) moving two mile East?. The free milk started to dry up and this guy decided to buy the cow, and ND scored big!


----------



## Perry Thorvig

Thanks for the copy of the lawsuit, Chris. If folks want some statistics, it is full of them.

I hope this lawsuit is just political posturing. Now, the Minnesota politicians can say that they have done what they can. They will hope their constituents are satisfied.

By the way, attorney Harry Sieben, Peterson's lawyer is very good. He is a former legislator.

I wonder how many North Dakota politicians are publicly or secretly hoping that the Minnesota lawsuit is successful. Better start cranking up the e-tree to demand that your local representatives make some noise about protecting North Dakota sovereignty. Maybe a judge will be influenced by some political heat. They are supposed to be immune from the heat, but it has been known to influence a case or two.

This will make for some interesting politics. It puts the North Dakota reps in some uncomfortable positions. If they support the lawsuit, it will make the outfitters and the local chambers of commerce happy. But, they could also be charged with caving into the Minnesota power across the border. That won't sell well with most locals. Watch this one. It will be interesting to see some of these folks squirm.


----------



## james s melson

You are right Dan, thousands of people who live elsewhere come to MN each morning to go to work, three lane highway 94 is stop and go because of people coming in from the east. It must be because MN has the jobs and has what it takes to be one of the "best places to live" in the U.S.I see there is no mention of him getting a job in ND, too bad MN has the rap of being selfish on some things but continues to support people who live outside it's borders with jobs.


----------



## Dan Bueide

jms, who's supporting who. The jobs thing cuts both ways too - without the employees, MN business would have a tough time surviving. Same here, to a smaller scale - the bulk of interstate commuters in our area drive West in the morning and East in the evening. Haven't heard any local squaks about all those MN's taking ND jobs.

I know well the three lane thing. Did it for six years - Plymouth to downtown Mpls - every day. Along with about four other factors, the traffic and ND hunting sent me packing West. When I got West, job dictated nothing in the way of if I live in ND or MN. Grew up in MN. Hunting in ND made it not even a close call. If I had chosen to root a few miles East in MN, how many visiting hunters would it have taken to offset the lost economic impact to ND? I bought the cow too.


----------



## james s melson

Dan, I'm glad everything worked out for you. Now knowing some more about you personally makes it easier for me to understand some of your posts. Don't lose your receipt for that cow.


----------



## KEN W

"It must be because MN has the jobs and has what it takes to be one of the "best places to live" in the U.S."

You're right Minn has the jobs because of the big Mpls.-St. Paul metro area....But if it is one of the best places to live...how come all those people you are talking about live across the border in Wisc. and drive back and forth every day.

It would be the same if that metro area was on the ND border....there still would be a lot of people who would choose to live on the ND side and drive over the river to their job.

Don't get me wrong I think Minn is a good place to live....but after living out here in the wide open spaces....I get claustaphobic around the Mpls metro area.


----------



## Dan Bueide

jms - usually the case - the mile in my shoes thing. Don't be making your '05 waterfowl reservations just yet, unless you're in the market for a cow yourself. :wink:


----------



## james s melson

We're in the process of slicing off a prime piece of it, until then a SD license is first priority, I can't wait around til '05.


----------



## prairie hunter

Hatch is an idiot. :eyeroll:

Hard to believe that Pawlenty fell into his spell. 

The people of MN should be embarassed. 

*Money drives politics and political motives*
I would guess that there is pure, hard money "hidden" behind this lawsuit. There must me a couple of very wealthy MN "gentlemen" that want to hunt ND more and thus have decided to finance the lawsuit via the state of MN.

MN taxpayers should be damn ****** off that THEIR money will be spent fighting for about 15K MNs who hunt in ND. *We are talking less than 0.5% of the population being represented by this lawsuit.* F***'n stupid.

*Not sure how you could find out who these big time money people are. Maybe run a cross-search between DU "life or donor" supporters / chairmen in MN and top financial supporters of Hatch and Pawlenty.*

Ken: I average between 12 and 20 wild upland gamebirds in the bag within 90 miles of the state capital. Great dog, good land - it is amazing how fast city turns to country in the MSP area. 

Urban sprawl will take it toll though.


----------



## NDMALLARD

Perry

I saw your letter made the Star Tribune. Good job and thanks! :beer:


----------



## tumblebuck

Dennis Anderson has a good article in this Sunday's Star Tribune. In a nutshell, he says Hatch is two-faced about his position on hunting rights, this is only going to make things worse for hunting, and the lawsuit needs to be withdrawn. Nice to read instead of the garbage that comes from his counterpart Schara.

Also a Q&A column with Hoeven. Hoeven answers the first couple questions pretty well, but goes downhill quickly after that. Check out this non-answer.....typical politician bull****



> Q (Anderson): Talk about the division among North Dakota residents over the non-resident hunting restrictions. The common belief is that outfitters and business owners are against the restrictions, while "average" hunters support them.
> 
> A Hoeven): Good management of hunting pressure and building public access acreage benefit everyone over the long term, and I believe North Dakotans support it. That's why we've put such a strong focus on our private lands initiatives, like Private Lands Open to Sportsmen (PLOTS), Coverlocks, and our Working Lands Initiative (WLI), which are creating more hunting opportunity. But even while building the resource, we must have some controls in place to avoid "burning it out." Instead of hard caps limiting the number of non-resident hunters, which some states have adopted, we are trying to limit and spread hunting pressure with reasonable time restrictions and zoning.


----------



## prairie hunter

*The fact is the 2003-04 hunting season and next year's season were determined out of compromise of ND state congressional sessions and the ND governor. All elected by ND residents.*

The rules were a compromise of what the ND people wanted or at least what the elected officials wanted. The significance of their decisions (legislators and governor) may be decided in the next election. I am not so sure that hunting issues rank as high with the general ND voter as they do with most on this site.

Yes - the current NR hunting rules are a compromise of *ND people*.

Yes - the decisions of the ND legislators and the governor _could_ have been (slightly) influenced by people living outside of ND.

Yes - NR have the right to voice their opinions on this web site or via other methods including writing the neighbor state's governor in order to swing opinion. NR have the right to write small hotel owners, etc... in order to get them going in ND politics.

*NO - one state does NOT have the right to tell another state what it can and can not do.*

I may not like some of the rules nor proposals to tighten them further. I can whine, I can lobby, but I know the only real way to avoid them is to move home to ND.


----------



## Fetch

PH I'm starting to like you :-? youve always had your heart in the right place - your mind is catching up :beer:


----------



## HuntnLab

I am finally starting to cool down about all this mess that MN started. My opinion is that SD is doing the right thing just sitting back and keeping quite for the most part, I mean its nice they are going to support us. They have just as good of waterfowl hunting as we do here but yet, they never get dragged into this for only allowing 4000 or so waterfowlers into there. I mean hell I might as sue Montana for charging me $640 to hunt elk when a resisent of MT only pays 16.00, this whole law suit is stupid. Mn needs to worry about replenishing there own wetlands and getting more crp over there. Idiot politicans over there. Another thing I think needs to be addressed, is the taxing of recreational land buyers here that are NOT residents. They should be taxed alot higher than residents. anyways my opinion, I am starting ramble on and my blood pressure is going up again talking about all this. just my opinon


----------



## Perry Thorvig

NDMallard - You are welcome.

Yes, it was nice to see that my letter made the Star Tribune on Saturday. I got a call at home from a guy who grew up south of Jamestown who supported what I had to say in the letter. He lives in the Twin Cities now.

It was also very gratifying (I mean very gratifying! I hugged my dog when I read the column.) to see Dennis Anderson's lengthy column on Sunday on the same topic. He followed many of the same points as I did in my letter. Dennis has not always been real supportive of North Dakota. But, he sure was in this column. Maybe, he was more anti Mike Hatch. Whatever, the reason, it was very nice to see his column. He gets it. The tide is turning in favor of protecting the resource in North Dakota.


----------



## Dan Bueide

140-plus posts and 4,000-plus views on this thread in less than a week. Lots of interest in this issue. How many are engaged? If you aren't, please see Dick's thread: http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/members/ph ... php?t=4922

Perry, nice letter, thanks.


----------



## Mr. B

First thing I guess I should tell you is I am from MN (feel free to start the bashing). I do have freinds and family that live in ND and I have never hunted there.

Since I do not have a basic understanding of the issues that are being faced there is no way I am going to tell any one how to deal with those issues. But I do have a question from what I have read it seems that the ND residents are against non residents buying or leasing land and then wanting to be able to hunt. Is this correct and if it is wouldn't the answer be to not put that land up forsale? I have not heard anyone upset at the people that are selling the land to the nonresident.

I also think that the lawsuit is wrong and it is just politics and big money getting in the way of management. I think that this lawsuit is going to have a negative affect no matter what the result.

Please do not group all those from MN as slob hunters, arrogant or any of the other terms of endearment that have been used just because we are from MN!


----------



## coop0157

I've been following this debate only recently - I'm a ND resident but have been attending school out of state, but can't wait to move home. In fact, the recreational opportunities in ND are one of the biggest reasons for my return (and that includes fishing - what's with these ND residents up in arms over losing a week or two of fishing in MN - haven't they noticed we've got some great, uncrowded lakes? Okay, okay, some of you have a cabin over there, I understand.)

So, after reading the posts, my question is whether or not a less overt means of restricting nonresidents was considered and then scrapped. I'm definitely on board for reducing hunting pressure, but wouldn't raising license fees by a substantial amount have done the trick, and in a way that: 
(1) MN couldn't complain about because we'd just be catching up with other states;
(2)maintained the some of the positive economic benefits for local businesses (if license fees are higher for nonresidents, I would think those willing to come anyway would be those with larger pocketbooks);
(3) reduced the number of nonresidents by virtue of the added cost; and,
(4) is less suceptible to legal challenge (higher fees for nonresidents has been explicitly upheld by the Supreme Court whereas this type of regulation has been questioned by at least one federal circuit, albeit a frequently overruled one).

It seems to me this plan to disallow nonresidents for a week is so obviously aimed at making a statement, particularly to hunters in MN, that this backlash could have been anticipated. And the problem with the lawsuit is that it gets the courts involved and none of us thinks they should be deciding how states can regulate their wildlife. While I doubt this issue will go away as the quality of hunting will continue to decline in areas with a lot of pressure and nonresidents seek out our state and similarly well-preserved and unpopulated hunting locations, I think policies that would protect our hunting heritage should be adopted more slowly and subtlely to avoid this kind of attack.

It's my hope that this will be resolved by the states and not the courts. It's also my view that this particular regulation was not the best way to go and should be dropped.

In any event, the recreational opportunities available in ND are a product of the good people of this state, our appreciation for habitat protection, and our willingness to invest in our resources. At the end of the day, that's something that will attract people (and the right kind of people) to live in our state and I think it's perfectly fair to require residence to enjoy the fruits of our efforts to the full extent.


----------



## HuntnLab

in 2005 is it possible to bring back SB2048? Can it be brought back to life and see if it makes it this time around?


----------



## Drakekiller

SB 2048 will be back and I think after this law suit it can not loose.If anybody can post anything Ron Schara writes on these subjects please post it.For everyones info he is very involed in buying land in the Linton area so he could loose alot of money if ND put more restrictions on Nrs.


----------



## widgeon

Drakekiller-

Great reasoning. Trying to shaft a guy for buying land in North Dakota just because you (may) not be able to hunt it. Way to go!


----------



## Brad Anderson

Widgeon, great reasoning. Why don't we shaft everybody that lives in ND instead. You really have no idea whats going on do you??


----------



## james s melson

Hunting is part of tourism, tourism is the #2 industry in ND, the people in power are not going to let those numbers fall. About 10% of ND's buy a hunting license (roughly 68,000) It's unlikely that the State will compromise itself by restricting hunting by non-residents any further. G/O's are also part of this industry.


----------



## Miller

james s melson said:


> It's unlikely that the State will compromise itself by restricting hunting by non-residents any further.


It was close in 2003. We lost by ONE vote and we had the majority.

Everyone at the office laughed at me for being so active in 2003 but now they're asking me how to get involved after this lawsuit. Don't think for a second things won't be different in 2005.


----------



## widgeon

Brad,

These laws that restrict non-resident hunters are shafting the North Dakota residents (refer to my posts in "SD responds" for my "arrogant reasoning").

James-- Right on.


----------



## SiouxperDave25

Does anyone else think this lawsuit is strictly a political move for both Hoevan and Pawlenty? Hoeven will defend the ND hunters and make himself look like a savior come election time. About a month or two before the election, they'll have another "summit" and smooth things over.

I haven't read every post in this thread so I apologize in advance if this has been debated already.


----------



## Field Hunter

Just a challenge for you guys that list "usa" on your profile. Could you put the state too. Would be help in clarifying what your views are on subjects.


----------



## Brad Anderson

2048 lost by one vote last season. "Unlikely" will be a "reality" next season.

Not sure where 68,000 RES hunters comes from. I know that almost every landowner in the state hunts deer. I'd bet more like 100,000 people hunt in the state.

I guess we should let the "rich hunt clubs" dictate our wildlife management laws. They know more about preservation than biologists. HA HA what a joke.


----------



## Brad Anderson

Fishing is part of tourism, tourism is an important industry in MN, the people in power are not going to restrict NR fisherpeople. The resort industry has much to lose by MN passing any kind of restrictions. It's unlikely that the State will compromise itself by restricting fishing by non-residents PERIOD.

Pretty easy to turn that post around.


----------



## james s melson

The 68,000 resident hunters numbers came from a site that featured a breakdown of the economy of ND by UND, if I can find it again I will post it. If you look at the economies of the two states in comparison (as you seem to want to do) you will see that ND has much more to lose. This isn't to degrade ND in any way, I happen to like the Dakotas.


----------



## Fetch

Jimmy Jimmy Jimmy

What do we have to lose ??? & is that just another threat ???

I sure see lots of Coal trains & High Voltage Power lines heading your way not to mention all the ag products we produce

Here educate yourself

http://www.fedstats.gov/mapstats/more.data/38000.html

__________________


----------



## widgeon

Field Hunter,

How does where you live clarify anything. oh yeah

not north dakotan = enemy
north dakotan = friend

per request, I stepped up to your ultimate challenge.

James,

There is no use in trying to help these folks. Just sit back and enjoy the show.

I've gotta go count my money and order some more posted signs (just trying to live up to my stereotype :beer: )

See ya'll next fall

YEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAA


----------



## Goldy's Pal

8) :toofunny: 8)


----------



## james s melson

A few facts

http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extnews/newsre ... growth.htm

ND relies alot on sales of non-resident hunting and fishing licenses income.


----------



## maple lake duck slayer

Who cares about all this. Sportsmen need to unite to protect our resources, not tear each other apart. It seems there are a lot of selfish people out there, looking out for their own hunting opportunities. I know a lot of ND residents care about this quite a bit, but you don't really hear much said about what is best for the animals and the land. Everything is MINE. MY animals. MY land. It belongs to no one. We simply live here. The animals and land were here long before us. If the same amount of time and energy were spent legislating for our resources and doing things to improve them as is spent here debating and making enemies of each other, it would go a long ways. Minnesota is doing a bad thing by messing around with a lawsuit like this. We should be trying to improve our own resources. For all the non-res hunters who are complaining about the laws passed or are for the lawsuit, think a minute. Wouldn't it be fun to be able to walk out you door and hunt like you can in ND? If we quit wasting our time screwing around with the dumb lawsuit, maybe we could do some good in our own state. Personally, I don't think the hunting is all that bad in MN. Especially if you put a little EFFORT into it. ND is an amazing state, they have many things to offer us. But our own state has a lot of things to offer us as well, if you want to admit it our not. I know last year 3 of us shot 60 ducks hunting weekends, and the last 3 years I got buck fever and missed 3 wallhangers  . Many other big deer were taken. I hope I at least can still be seen as a friend to all sportsmen, ND resident or not.


----------



## muzzy

Maple Lake, I agree. We do have it nice here, and just want to maintain that.


----------



## Dan Bueide

Widg, when you're on this site for a while, you'll know I'm not a big name-caller. Your insinuation that those of us with a certain position on these issues are greedy, however, I thought invited the opportunity for me to insinuate arrogance upon those who visit ND a little in the fall and think they understand all of the dynamics of what hunting means to ND and all of its residents and demand they be let in just 'cause they can. Buck up, and for the record, we never asked for help on the subject - demands either.

Coop, welcome home (almost), to this site and to these debates. You obviously have a real strong interest in these issues but have a lot of catching up to do on ground thoroughly plowed for a couple of years. PM one or more of us with your contact info, and we'll gladly spend some time on the phone with you about some of the topics you raise - my fingers would be bloody stumps trying to cover all of the issues and sub-issues implicated in your recent posts.

HPC will be back. It's a very logical and reasonable way to deal with caps, the reasons for them and what they should produce. We've been all ears, but no one has come up with anything better in the last two years. jms, you're whistling through the graveyard if you think more restrictions aren't coming.

Pressure is no great mystery - it's best evidenced by hunter days (number of hunters x number of days hunted). ND's hunter days have exploded the past 3-4 years. You can't reduce pressure without reducing the number of hunters or the number of days they hunt. Some ND policy makers have been influenced not to address these issues with the "C word" - caps. Well, then, your only options are fiddling with things to affect the number of days hunted, and unless you're willing to do that with stricter express time limitations, you end up with back door routes like the goofy, hodge-podge, largely ineffectual waterfowl program we had last year.

While caps may exclude some hunters some years, they make other back door pressure-reducing tools like zones, shooting hours, closed-shooting days and possibly even resident-only periods that NR's hate working around less important, and produce a more-flexible and more enjoyable experience when they do come.


----------



## coop0157

Dan, 
I will be the first to admit I'm not entirely up to speed on these things and may take you up on the offer to chat over the phone. To some extent, my point was just about strategic choices and I question why all of these changes were implemented simultaneously. It seems like the only real and very serious outcome has been to force the issues on the court and that's, well, just plain scary. And the difference in license fees for NRs is much more easily justifiable discrimination than the other options. But, point taken - I definitely can't wait to get myself back in the state and back in the loop.


----------



## Field Hunter

Widgeon, Where you are from shouldn't have any effect on your views, but I guess we know your's now. I think some of the guys on the site could tell you that I had thought that some sort of compromise was needed.....last year. I think ND did a good job at trying to compromise to keep everyone happy. Remember the 30,000 cap on waterfowlers the year before....hell they took that off in the legislature due to complaints by NRs and outfitters. I'd be suprised if the zones in the central part of the state aren't gone the next session. Now with the issues as they are I've changed my mind. NRs have a big place in the ND landscape in the future BUT residents will have to be taken care of first. The NR landowner purchasing land for huntng purposes will be a major issue...especially interms of purchasing for deer hunting and wanting to hunt the season because you own land. I own land in MN and wouldn't even think of complaining about the NR restrictions they place on me. I've never posted my Grandmothers land in S Central ND, great for deer, sharptails, and pheasants. I've talked to hunters from MN, SD, ND that have been huntng when we arrived...all are great. Unfortunately there is a steady increase in that area of NRs leasing and posting for the season and NRs purchasing land....when that happens, I can tell you, you don't hunt.


----------



## Bubba

Beings those Mn people and other NR hunters don't bring in "that much money" to the State through license fees and lodging, and supplies bought at sporting goods stores, I think Mn and other states would have been farther ahead to pass some legislation that forbids their own residents from hunting out of state. There, problem solved. You get to keep your ducks. You don't have to put up with NR hunters anymore. And I'm sure the "very little" cash ND takes in from the above mentioned activities won't be missed by your G&F Dept., or your motel owners, etc. etc. I think we need to lobby St.Paul and see if we can't have them make us stay home. (Forgot the old favorite lame line, "It's for the children"!) :justanangel:


----------



## widgeon

Field hunter,

Yeah, I know your views and you know mine. This forum is a good place to learn where eachother are coming from. Obviously I have a totally different way of looking at it than many of you which is alright-- as long as I get my way :lol: . (kidding, of course)


----------



## Fetch

The problem some of you don't see or think about is. (There Will Never Be a Shortage of NR's Hunters that want to come here)

There really is no worries about a Shortage - But many don't want limits of any kind. Just let em all in & let em all come at the same time, to too few areas - All I want is to spread em out & spread em over the entire season.

I have always said that we can handle lots more hunters, if managed properly (That is not happening) & yes it is mainly for political reasons & ingorance on many of our own residents sides of all this & selfishness of many of us, that can't handle not having all our friends & family when we want them to be here. All that has to end & come up with as fair & consistent a plan to manage NR's as possible. & YES if you don't like that TOUGH !!!

Small towns have got to realize when Full is Full & when it starts affecting the residents too (by degrading the quality we have come to expect) & that we Residents are also important to the economics in all this & should not be taken for granted -In fact YES we deserve to be treated special because we live here. Why would we want to see big changes, if it means pressuring our birds & creating hard feelings between landowners & those of us that live here ??? We have had very good relations with landowners (except a crabby few & they will never change) just like there are a few bad apples among either group of hunters. But in recent yrs & because of poor management & politics things are now a mess - it does not have to be & should not be this way. & I have a feeling things will improve, if the politicians let our G&FD do the right things - They have a solid grasp on what needs to be done & should be able to do it - If that could happen all this will someday look silly & unnessessary. But until then, we have to keep doing what we have to do, to try & convince them to do the right things & that includes politics & hard feelings....... :eyeroll:


----------



## Dan Bueide

> And the difference in license fees for NRs is much more easily justifiable discrimination than the other options.


Coop, if the CC comes to bear, don't know if you're right about that. Under the USSC case dealing with elk fees in Wyo. or Mont. (don't remember which and don't remember the cite, but it's cited in Montoya), differential license fees are okay under P&I, but CC may be another deal, *IF *CC applies.

But, this is also one of those "replow" things. Very large license fee increases were advocated by some prior to the last session - as a back door pressure mitigation tool. After kicking it around a while, most of those I discussed it with were opposed for a couple of reasons. First, if goal is to weed some out, why pick a technique that's more likely to stop the welder from Waconia than the e-n-t from Edina? Didn't seem the "right" route, when the overall goal is to keep meaningful hunting available in ND to all ND's without regard to class. Also, could be counterproductive to fighting commercialization by loading up the visitor pool with those more likely able and willing to exascerbate the exclusivity game through o/g, buy and lease.

In the end, pretty reasonable fee increases were made that, along with a $5 increase in the habitat stamp applicable to all (R and NR), help secure some more public land, hire a few more wardens and otherwise deal with things largely necessitated by the influx of NR hunters.


----------



## coop0157

Yeah, I hope you're right. I think the appropriate distinction is that ND has adopted regulations that give residents a recreational advantage, not an economic advantage. But, the Manning case focused on the fact that because sales of things like hides, antlers, mounts, etc. aren't restricted, and that some people deal in those items commercially, that nonresidents are economically disadvantaged in their access to them. Of course, I think the Manning court should have looked at that activity as de minimis and recognized that hunting is a sport and not commercial activity.

The MN complaint seems to want us to believe that because there is a lot of economic activity associated with it, that hunting itself should be viewed as commercial. While that's clearly a bad argument, I could see a court being tempted to lose sight of the commerce clause purpose - to prevent economic discrimination between in-staters and out-of-staters. Given recent Court decisions limiting the commerce clause in areas of noncommercial activity, one would hope a lower court would get it right. It looks like MN is betting they won't.

Am I reading this case/complaint incorrectly? Do you agree?

As far as keeping hunting accessible to the common man, I think it's a noble idea and I hope it works out that way. Of course, if it doesn't, the welder from Waconia is always welcome to relocate.


----------



## Dan Bueide

Coop, I think you've got it right. Mn is now advocating a position and result it, and 20-some other states, joined in with AZ to oppose just 18 months or so ago. Don't think 8th will be as receptive as the 9th on these issues.


----------



## tumblebuck

You may have already seen these, but for those of you who haven't:

*States entrench for long border battle*

By Tim Spielman
Associate Editor
Minneapolis - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials said this week the agency doesn't oppose North Dakota's additional restrictions imposed on nonresident hunters, restrictions that recently spurred the state of Minnesota to sue North Dakota.
"The Fish and Wildlife position is, we set the frameworks for regulations, but we have no issue with states being more restrictive than the frameworks," said USFWS spokesperson Rachel Levin, from the Region 3 office in Minneapolis. "Once we've set the frameworks, we leave it to the states to set restrictions."
North Dakota in 2003 allowed only state residents to hunt during the first week of the waterfowl season. Depending on the frameworks set by the USFWS this season, such a closure could occur again. Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch, who filed the lawsuit - and named Minnesota U.S. Congressman Collin Peterson as a co-plaintiff - states in the suit: "By unfairly discriminating against nonresidents in the access to waterfowl hunting in North Dakota, (the defendants) have placed impermissible burdens on interstate commerce in violation of the (U.S. Constitution)."
Named as defendants in the suit are North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven and Dean Hildebrand, director of the North Dakota Game and Fish Department.
Levin says never in her 10-year career with the USFWS has she seen a lawsuit of this nature, that addresses management of a species - migratory birds - which are shared by a number of states. However, in a case from last summer, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco struck down an Arizona restriction that limited the number of bull elk and antlered deer permits given to nonresidents to 10 percent of the total tags issued. The federal judges ruled the cap "substantially affects and discriminates against interstate commerce." 
Minnesota, along with the states of South Dakota, North Dakota, and Montana, requested the U.S. Supreme Court hear an appeal of the Circuit Court's ruling; the Supreme Court declined. Hatch said Minnesota's case against North Dakota is somewhat different. He asks that the court in this case deem North Dakota's waterfowl licensing system "unconstitutional, void, and unenforceable."
Levin said U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials believed restrictions on nonresidents during North Dakota's pheasant season were plausible because the restrictions didn't "preclude pheasant hunting on federal lands." The closure during the first week of the pheasant season affected state lands and state-enrolled "Private Lands Open to Sportsmen," or PLOTS lands. Where open to hunting, federal lands were open to nonresident hunting, Levin said. Federal holdings in North Dakota include about 240,000 acres in waterfowl production areas, and about 330,000 acres in national wildlife refuges. Hunting is not allowed in all areas.
Not all North Dakotans favored the state's nonresident restrictions, which also included specific zones and time limitations on waterfowl hunting. However, support may be shifting.
"We're hearing from a lot of folks that Minnesota shouldn't be telling North Dakota what to do," said Paul Schadewald, chief of the Administrative Services Division for the North Dakota Game and Fish Department. "This (lawsuit) is solidifying North Dakotans' attitude that the state should be able to manage its own affairs."
Minnesota DNR Commissioner Gene Merriam said this week the agency has conducted internal meetings to discuss what regulations might be proposed next legislative session for nonresidents from states that place nonresident restrictions on hunters from Minnesota.


----------



## tumblebuck

By Dale Wetzel
Associated Press
Bismarck, N.D. - Although they regard a Minnesota legal challenge to state hunting policy as foolish and insulting, it is not likely to influence the North Dakota Legislature's hunting policy decisions, lawmakers predict. 
"I really don't think it's going to have a lot of effect," said Rep. Jon Nelson, R-Wolford, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. "In the Legislature, when you talk about hunting, the lines are already pretty well drawn." 
During the 2003 Legislature, lawmakers defeated restrictions on visiting hunters that were much more onerous than the rules which prompted the lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Bismarck last week. 
One proposal, defeated by one vote in the North Dakota House, sought to link the number of nonresident duck and goose hunting licenses to a state Game and Fish survey of waterfowl breeding conditions. 
Under the bill, less water in North Dakota's prairie potholes would have meant big reductions in the number of available licenses, which currently are not capped. 
Another unsuccessful bill, sponsored by Nelson, would have imposed a limit of 10,000 duck licenses for visiting hunters during the first 20 days of the fall season. Last year, out-of-state hunters bought 26,020 licenses. 
The state of Minnesota and Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., are the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which was filed by Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch. It contends North Dakota's restrictions on out-of-state hunters - including visiting sportsmen who own or lease hunting ground in the state - represent unconstitutional limits on cross-border business. 
North Dakota's Legislature approved some of the hunting changes that Hatch is challenging. Lawmakers agreed to bar visiting hunters from about 640,000 acres of land controlled by the state Game and Fish Department during the first week of pheasant season, which is tentatively scheduled to open Oct. 9. 
The agency implemented other limits, including a ban on visiting hunters for the first week of duck season, and a seven-day limit on the amount of time they may spend in two duck-hunting zones in central and south-central North Dakota. 
Rep. Todd Porter, R-Mandan, who has pushed for broader limits on out-of-state hunters, said North Dakota residents deserve hunting advantages in their own state. Porter is vice chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. 
"What we did &#8230; is try to come up with a balance for both the residents and the nonresidents and make it a good hunting experience for everybody, in regards to access and the availability of the game," Porter said. "You take an area around Jamestown and you tell everybody they can hunt in that one area, how long do you think the ducks are going to stay there?" 
Visiting hunters have thronged to North Dakota in recent years, drawn by wet conditions that have aided duck and goose reproduction, and mild winters that helped the state's pheasant population flourish. 
In 1990, Game and Fish Department statistics say, 5,522 visiting hunters bought North Dakota waterfowl licenses. The number increased to 21,873 in 1999, 30,028 in 2001 and 29,992 in 2002, when Gov. John Hoeven set a limit of 30,000 licenses. 
The number of nonresident pheasant hunters zoomed from 11,857 in 1999 to 22,840 in 2002. While the number of resident duck hunters has remained stable, resident pheasant hunters have become more numerous, increasing from 47,609 in 1999 to 56,155 in 2002, the last season for which figures are available. 
"Pheasant hunting went wild. We had good conditions," said Paul Schadewald, a Game and Fish administrator. "Word gets around, and people start showing up." 
The increase has prompted appeals to Hoeven and the Legislature to limit the number of visiting hunters, and restrict the amount of time they could hunt in certain areas of the state. 
"The idea wasn't to be punitive to anybody from any other state," said Sen. Tom Fischer, R-Fargo, the chairman of the Senate Natural Resources Committee. "It was to spread the pressure around." 
The lawsuit, Fischer said, "is pretty foolish. I don't think it will make any difference in what we do in the Legislature." 
Lawmakers and Stenehjem also point to the limits Minnesota imposes on visiting sportsmen. For example, visitors may not hunt elk, moose or prairie chickens, and they must remove ice fishing houses from lakes overnight. Minnesota residents may leave ice houses on frozen lakes for the duration of the ice fishing season. 
Stenehjem said he intends to meet with South Dakota's attorney general, Larry Long, this week to discuss hunting issues. Both men plan to attend a National Association of Attorneys General meeting in Washington, D.C., which begins Monday. 
South Dakota's limits on visiting duck hunters are much more stringent than North Dakota's, and represent another potential legal target. For out-of-state sportsmen, South Dakota sets aside only 3,775 licenses that allow duck hunting in most of the state. 
Stenehjem believes South Dakota, and possibly other states, may intervene on North Dakota's side in the litigation. 
"This is not a lawsuit that we can afford to lose," Stenehjem said. 
Nelson represents a rural district in north-central North Dakota, including McHenry and Pierce counties and most of Benson County. He and other rural lawmakers have resisted pressure to restrict the number of visiting hunters, saying they bring much-needed business to North Dakota's countryside. 
However, Nelson said he believes the new laws and Game and Fish Department regulations have worked well for activists on both sides of the issue. 
"I would like to see no restrictions at all," he said. "But resident hunters have a concern, and we have to look at those as well." 
Porter said he considered the lawsuit an insult. 
"We made their playground a little more restrictive, and I'm offended that they look at us as their playground," Porter said.


----------



## FLOYD

Hey guys. I haven't read all of the posts in this thread, so if this has already been said, I apologize. I have seen a lottery as an option mentioned, but I don't necessarily agree with that. Would it work to set a hard cap at, say, 20,000 or so and just go first come-first serve? The people who are serious about it would still get their license and I don't think one would have much of a complaint if they were sold out. You had plenty of chance to buy one. Its not like they will sell out in two days. I think Dan B or someone had said there were around 26000 or so NR waterfowlers last year, and that was too many for the water conditions. I just think rather than going to the lottery, we could lower the cap and still allow plenty of opportunity to obtain a license. The people who really want to come and hunt will get a license, and I don't think it is ridiculous to commit to buying a license a month or so before season. Again, if this has been covered, sorry.


----------



## BMAC

Hello all! "1st time caller, long time listener." You know what I mean. I have to say that you are the best bunch of guys that I've, well...um, never met. I am one Minnesotan who is embarassed and mad as hell about this lawsuit. Has anyone contacted Hatch or Pawlenty? Well, I have. And I got responses from both of them. One of Hatches office workers acually gave me a printed response (sort of like an outline). I don't believe I've seen it here, although there have been so many threads on this topic.

Let me know if it's been posted. Someone may have to PM me as far as getting it from my email to here. By the way, it'll definitely anger ND residents. Hatch makes it sound as though he's doing us all (including Joe NoDak Farmer) a big favor. :eyeroll:


----------



## Dan Bueide

Floyd, no need for a lottery now or the indefinite future. Lottery is one of the strongest offered concerns of those promoting commercialization.

While you may be talking about the right number today (20k), most would prefer a dynamic cap as opposed to one that's static. HPC is dynamic in that it takes into account varrying habitat and use by R, making all excess available to NR. Based upon most recent R use, 20k NR would be too low in periods of excellent water conditions; too high in periods of low water conditions.

But, within the HPC system, a floor could be set, that no matter what, xK licenses will be available. These could go on sale say 1/01. When the HPC data is collected and formulated late spring, any additional licenses could be made available then. This would take away much of the "can't plan our trip" arguments. By way of showing how relatively flexible this would be, I don't think SD's lottery for all waterfowl licenses is conducted until some time in the summer.

No need for a lottery so long as the number of apps don't exceed what's available on the first day of sale. Based upon water conditions and resident use of late, chances are no lottery would be necessary, right now - not to say it wouldn't become necessary some day, if demand contiues to sky-rocket and/or water conditions worsen.

Some of us have gone to great lengths to try and develop ways to mitigate some of the concerns over caps. Hasn't made a lick of difference in the minds of some - just new reasons for "no." At the end of the day, some still feel you can "let 'em all in" without long-lasting, negative consequences, which I personally believe is head in the sand stuff.


----------



## KEN W

That's an interesting idea Dan...if there is to be a cap with a floor number...that number could go on sale at any time,with the rest for sale after the final number is set.


----------



## charles

Fellows of this great site,

I do not know alot of the backgropund (less what I read here) on this topic. I believe states should most definatly limit non residents. It is not a self greed thing that I base this on it is past experiances with out of states folks "using" the state I was born and live in and most likely will be six foot under in. The resources of each others states are just that their resources. 
I guess I will stop myself and quote my grandfather in saying;
"if you like to catch fish here don't tell anyone"
To quote myself;
"Technology is only as good as it is applied", now-a-days you can see someones hunting spots from your home hundreds of miles away. Used to be you had to know someone(trust) to get in on their good spots.

I wish you all well,
Chuck


----------



## Hunter_58346

Unless we have a wet spring and summer this whole lawsuit garbage will be long forgotten by the time hunting season starts. Potholes are almost dry now and there is NO runoff to fill them up. Don't believe me? Drive from Jamestown to the Canadian border and tell me different. Maybe we need a four or five year dry spell to weed out the few fair-weather hunters.
Then as more minnesotans have to go to Manitoba and Saskatchewan to hunt, they will bring suit against the Canadian government for not sharing. 8)
And if politicians hadnt gotten their noses into this, we wouldnt be having these problems anyway. They cant manage normal day-to-day state business, how do they expect to manage something that they know even less about?


----------



## lynxx69

Ok I am a nonresident hunter and to be honest with you alot of this stupid people are saying bull crap.... I don't agree with what minnesota is doing but what everyone saying is everyone is so worried about the cost... Many are not, just the Damn limit you put on us.... There are many avid huntiers in MN and some people like to hunt pheasants more than twice or water fowl more than 2/7 day hunts or one 14 day hunt... We could hunt in Minnesota and forget about ND, but it just so happens ND has a main flyway for Water fowl (snow geese).... ND has a good number of pheasants... And now I will state this... I went west for pheasant hunting and many people hate these rules alls this Regulations did was piss of western ND but to you fargo boys, you are just greedy and take if for yourself.... You don't think about all the money the small towns have lost in the west, but yu don't care because Now you have your hunting land...Wow Maybe I have it all worng but I know that I do fork alot of money over ND and if it gets worse then why should I help and ND people out.... I have heard the comment several times that people don;'t even cosider Fargo as part of ND now thats gotta hurt... I will be interested in someones reply on this.... :eyeroll: I think minnesota should just take away the right of ND so then you people can feel the impact we have... Bye Bye lake homes, fishing, snowmobiling (Trails) and even the hunters that come to hunt MN....


----------



## Fetch

:roll:


----------



## 4CurlRedleg

Lynxx, what side of your mouth are we to listen too? Hmmm? dd:


----------



## Goldy's Pal

4 leg; Does fetch need to yank your little choke collar or do you heel like a good little doggy???? :run:


----------



## 4CurlRedleg

Come on goldy, go lay by your dish and don't get caught lickin' yourself again!  eace:


----------



## wiscan22

Hey Fellow Outdoorsmen! (at least I think so anyway)

How's your day? I've been reading alot about Minnesota being the ones mad about the ND restricitons on nonresidents and unfortunately, they're not alone. I've been hunting ND for the last 26 years and I'd have to rank Wisconsin in with the angry ones, myself included.

Last year there were two major changes that ND made to their laws:

1.) Almost a 100% increase in license fees.

2.) Prohibited the nonresident from hunting any land for anything that is funded by state dollars a/k/a PLOTS land during the first 7 days of pheasant season.

Before I go any further I would like to state my positions:

A.) I can understand the law giving the residents of ND exclusive hunting rights to waterfowl and pheasants for the first week of the season. In theory this is no different than SD and give the residents the ability to enjoy the "locals" end of the hunt. When ND restricted access to the state lands for ALL hunting for the week only to nonresidents, I personally feel it went way too far. Coincidentally, the week of pheasant hunting falls at or about the peak waterfowl migration and this change in law does nothing more than over-restrict the nonresident.

B.) Although license fee increases don't effect me because I'm employed, personally, I feel that the fee increases have done nothing more than promote the "Hunting is turning into a rich mans sport" theory. I'm sure it prevents the father and son team from enjoying a hunting trip.

Basically what happened here is ND gave the nonresident a double whammy which quite frankly is very hard to understand. The laws stated two things, _If you want to hunt ND, you're going to have to pay_
and _You can hunt here but you're only hunting after we're done_.

Quite frankly I think that the laws long term effects are going to cost ND much greater than what they suspect. Unfortunately, the lines have been drawn in the sand by ND and it's very obvious they aren't just going to go away.


----------



## GooseBuster3

WOW uke: any of the residents really cared about that last post we would help yeah. :roll: But after reading hundreds of post just like the last one it really makes me sick.


----------



## wiscan22

GooseBuster3 said:


> WOW uke: any of the residents really cared about that last post we would help yeah. :roll: But after reading hundreds of post just like the last one it really makes me sick.


:lame: This would be your attitude

:withstupid: This would be your brain.

Get the message......


----------



## Field Hunter

I'd say you hae a pretty good handle on the situation, except, A. We didn't restrict all hunting the first week of pheasant season...only the PLOTS and GnF management areas.....only 1% of the land and the majority of them DO NOT have water on them. and B. The fees are now in line with the rest of the area...the states that have game anyway. SD does have a restriction on the amount of waterfowl hunters...we don't. Get over the fact that you can't come to hunt openng weekend...on state land the 1st week of pheasant season....the residents over welmingly liked the lack of pressure for a change. The huntng only gets better as more and more crops come down. In this whole thing I'm continuously amazed by the mentality of some NR hunters who evidently think they have to be here on opening weekend.....some how many of them think that all the birds are shot on opening weekend. Not the case at all. And you are right also in that you do have to pay to hunt ND but wrong in that you hunt when we're done....do yourself a favor and schedule your trip after the first week...you'll find as many or more pheasants on much less pressured land.......in fact I'll go as far as to hunt with you for a day to prove my points....just PM when you want to go.


----------



## GooseBuster3

Wiscan22........you get the message, I dont like NR'S??? :roll: :eyeroll:


----------



## wiscan22

Field Hunter said:


> I'd say you hae a pretty good handle on the situation, except, A. We didn't restrict all hunting the first week of pheasant season...only the PLOTS and GnF management areas.....only 1% of the land and the majority of them DO NOT have water on them. and B. The fees are now in line with the rest of the area...the states that have game anyway. SD does have a restriction on the amount of waterfowl hunters...we don't. Get over the fact that you can't come to hunt openng weekend...on state land the 1st week of pheasant season....the residents over welmingly liked the lack of pressure for a change. The huntng only gets better as more and more crops come down. In this whole thing I'm continuously amazed by the mentality of some NR hunters who evidently think they have to be here on opening weekend.....some how many of them think that all the birds are shot on opening weekend. Not the case at all. And you are right also in that you do have to pay to hunt ND but wrong in that you hunt when we're done....do yourself a favor and schedule your trip after the first week...you'll find as many or more pheasants on much less pressured land.......in fact I'll go as far as to hunt with you for a day to prove my points....just PM when you want to go.


Field Hunter,

I think you need to reread my post. I said:

2.) Prohibited the nonresident from hunting any land for anything that is funded by state dollars a/k/a PLOTS land during the first 7 days of pheasant season.

I went on to say:

A.) I can understand the law giving the residents of ND exclusive hunting rights to waterfowl and pheasants for the first week of the season. In theory this is no different than SD and give the residents the ability to enjoy the "locals" end of the hunt. When ND restricted access to the state lands for ALL hunting for the week only to nonresidents, I personally feel it went way too far. Coincidentally, the week of pheasant hunting falls at or about the peak waterfowl migration and this change in law does nothing more than over-restrict the nonresident.

I am a waterfowl hunter. No offense but I could care less about the pheasants. Not that there not fun to hunt, it's just my first love is a duck. Besides that, where we hunt, there are few pheasants. Also, we never come for opening week of waterfowl in ND. Never have and probably never will. Seems the geese don't come down until after the 2nd week and we also enjoy a good "Canadian low pressure hunt" once in a while and coming the first week hardly guarentees that.

Regarding the PLOTS/GnF land issue, NR's rely on state lands to hunt, it's as plain as that. Yes permission is easily granted in most cases on private land but in lean water years such as last year, private lands are held for family which is once again fully understandable. In the county we hunt the PLOTS/GnF land holds water and it held alot last year.

Look at it from a diffferent perspective. We have tons of deer and turkey in Wisconsin. Just suppose that you hunted here and all of a sudden one year the state passes a law that says OK Nonresidents, you can hunt deer and turkey if you want however, you can't hunt deer opening weekend on any state funded land (alot of Wisconsin is) and Turkey season is open only after the third season. Is that right? Hell No! And no offense but we have more deer hunters hunting the woods (650,000) than you do state residents and we still rank in the top three producing deer harvest states.

Regarding the money end of it, We have what we call a Conservation Patrons license here and the prices are as follows:

Nonresident 17and older: $600. Nonresidents 12 to 17: $75.
Go here to see what it includes:

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/cs/ ... pfees.html

The licenses are good for all year.


----------



## wiscan22

GooseBuster3 said:


> Wiscan22........you get the message, I dont like NR'S??? :roll: :eye roll:


 :eyeroll: You sound like a PETA member pal. do yourself a favor and do something for the sport....like promoting it in a positive fashion.


----------



## Field Hunter

You know, I'd love to debate this but it's a Sunday night...but what I would say is that you have to get the idea that state land is where it's at. It's easy to get on private land. I'm from the eastern part of the state and never have hunted a PLOTS or wildlife management area for ducks. I hunt every weekend the 1st month for waterfowl. I don't have my own land and never really intend to buy any. Unfortunately, some NRs, think they're really getting screwed the first week and I just don't see it. I do understand the mentality of huntng the public ground. I've got a group of friends that hunt a wildlife management area in the Norhtcentral area. With the shrinking water the last couple of years the competiotion on that slough has become immense. 3 years ago they had the area to themselves. Last year there were 4 different groups huntng the same body of water..at the same time....what's really ridiculous is that there were scores of acreas of water on the adjacent private farms and the group that I know never even asked...they just assumed the private stuff was unavailable. I can see the restriction on the state land for waterfowling being lifted the next leg session...I would tend to think it was never intended to be a ban on waterfowling on those lands, just upland hunting. But because of the way the law was worded it became so.


----------



## wiscan22

Hey FieldHunter,

Yah, I agree with the first week thing but in all honesty the residents that we know for the last 20 years all encouraged us to come up opening weekend. We never did for the reasons stated in my previous post. Actually in my 26 years I never even came home with a full bag limit. Had a few days where we got a limit of mallards but it was the day that was great. Cloudy, windy, little north wind bite and birds decoying in that were coming out of Canada. Froze our butts off but what great memories. Anyway, I think we're kind of on the same page here with few differences. Have a good Sunday.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com

GooseBuster3 said:


> Wiscan22........you get the message, I dont like NR'S??? :roll: :eyeroll:


Wiscan, from someone who knows him personally...I can attest that he doesn't like anybody. So don't take it personally. :wink:


----------



## Fetch

Goosebuster I think you would like me :roll:

I have to say Wisconsin guys in general are usually a great bunch & have fun & appreciate what we have over here - Over all the yrs I have hunted & met & hunted with lots of NR's I have never not liked Wisconsin people :huh:

They bring lots of good things to eat & know how to get permission & establiish long term relationships (which is fine) I don't recall too many wanting to buy up ND like some States do ??? maybe thats cause Cheese & brats & beer work so well  to get to hunt for free :wink:

& they probably dislike Minnesotans more than we do :lol:


----------



## wiscan22

Hey Chris and Fetch,

Thanks for the compliment! I would hope that the vast majority of sportspersons present themselves in the same manner that Fetch described. Actually Fetch I don't know if it's the beer, cheese and brats that do it or if it's because the North Dakotans are just a damn great group of super people. I think the latter is the reason for the good mix. All kidding aside, I couldn't think of a place that is more hospitable than ND. :beer:

Minnesota???? Only good ones are the Packer Fans :wink:


----------



## lynxx69

I don't know why everyone hates Minnesota people..... Its the political part that you should not like not the people.... I admit there are many Minnesota hunters that are just getting in the way or whatever but theres alor more hunters in MN too and were alot closer than Wisconsin that may be a reason you hate Minn so much.... But there is nothing I hate more than sterotypes and yes, I am from Minnesota and I do like to enjoy ND hunting....


----------



## wiscan22

Regarding the acceptable restrictions that would be acceptable to a NR, North Dakota had a great system in place 25 years ago when I first started hunting the state. It was really simple and worked well. The state was divided into three zones much like it was prior to last years sweeping change. 2/7 and 14 day hunts were the same also. There was a limited amount of licenses available per zone and when they were gone, they were gone. We hunt in the upper north part of ND and that section had an extremely limited number of licenses available and they never sold out. I don't recall the numbers anymore but I'm sure if the residents researched this they could be posted on this site. Problem was hardly anyone (NR's)came to hunt and the license limits were abolished. After a while some national sports magazines found out about this well kept secret and started writing articles about the great hunting ND offers with little or no pressure. Guess what.... feed them and they shall come and we came. So anyway, on to the suggestions:

1.) Get rid of your Department of Tourism. Their job is to make the state of North Dakota attractive to a NR so they come and spend money. Obviously, they've done a great job. Problem is the residents don't want the NR or the money.

2.) Stop inviting the national sports magazines, DU included, to write articles about your states great hunting. Tell them the truth, the marshes stink and are full of loon sh*t and it's a bear to move around. Most of the ducks that are flying are spoonies, widgeon and teal, you've really got to work your a$$ off for a limit of mallards and you'll never see a mature drake pintail not to mention chances are you're not going to limit out. The fields are beyond huge so if you want to hunt geese don't think it's a walk in the park to do it. You wake up at 3:00 in the morning to haul out 30 budzillion decoys, put them up under your truck lights IF the farmer let's you drive out in the field, otherwise add an extra hour to walk the decoys out, get a blind set up only to have a yearling goose or two enter your setup. Then you get to take the whole thing down. If it rains, the fields are like ice rinks and the mudd is stickier than molasass.

3.) Where we hunt (and I ain't tellin' where) we seldom have a problem with crowding. I've had numerous enjoyable quality hunts with little or no competion to speak of. Based on what I've been reading there must be alot better spots than what I'm aware of (Devils Lake, Lake Alice Wildlife Refuge, etc.) where there is a bigger concentration of hunters. Target those spots, zone them and limit the amount of hunters in those zones. It sounds like a challenge but we did it in Wisconsin with Canada Geese and it works great. We use to have firing lines around the borders of our refuges that looked similar to the beginning of the shark fishing seen in the movie "Jaws". How a goose ever got out alive was beyond me and how nobody never got shot arguing about who shot the goose is an even greater mystery. The rest of the state can be zoned like it was in the past and limit the amount of licenses per zone. It was not at all difficult then and it won't be now.

4.) Get rid of the Guide/Corporate land leases. This is by far the biggest reason for ND's congestive hunting problems. Way too much land is going in that direction and that shuts down alot of land. Last year we had to call Florida and Texas to obtain permission to hunt on private land in the upper north part of ND. Needless to say we were denied.

A word of advise... be careful what you wish for. I live along the shores of Lake Michigan and 20 or so years ago snagging king salmon was legal. We had more NR's lining our shores than seagulls on the lake. We P&M'd and finally did it enough that they outlawed snagging, not that that was such a bad thing. The economic affect was huge, much larger than you'd ever anticipate. Not that that matters to ND but the bottom line is NR dollars pay for a large amount of your wildlife programs and believe me the extra dollars help alot. As I said before, I've been hunting ND for 26 years enjoying it so much we even bought a house in one of the smaller towns. You're not going to get the "well I'm a NR and I pay taxes" lecture here but I'll tell you one thing. It's no secret that the residents in that small town rely heavily on NR dollars to make it through the year. Enough lecturing.

Anyway, there must be a middle ground that will work for everyone here. Both sides have good debates and really nobody's wrong. It's unfortunate that Minnesotas governor decided to push the issue and it's highly unlikely that they will win but let's say they do. The Federal Government then tells ND to stop the limits and allow the same benefits that residents now have. And ND residents and landowners suddenly revert to NOT granting permission for hunting which I would venture to guess would probably happen. Now there's a win-win situation ain't it?


----------



## KEN W

We don't hate Minn people or Wisc. people....actually I like everything about Wisc. except those @#*(&*^%$ Packers! uke:


----------



## Fetch

So Pizzing & Moaning can work  - do you remember how that worked was it in a compromising attitude or a get mad as Hell attitude ???


----------



## wiscan22

KEN W said:


> We don't hate Minn people or Wisc. people....actually I like everything about Wisc. except those @#*(&*^%$ Packers! uke:


Thanks Ken, I'm feeling better already :wink:


----------



## wiscan22

Fetch said:


> So Pizzing & Moaning can work  - do you remember how that worked was it in a compromising attitude or a get mad as Hell attitude ???


Actually I think it was a little bit of both. The way is was everyone was mad as hell because the goose hunting was such a nonsporting event except of course those shooters who felt that the firing line scenario was the way to go.

After the change the shooters were mad because they lost their shooting gallery and the rest of us just continued to hunt. The State of Wisconsin did do one thing that is really hard to adjust to though. They established quotas on geese. How it works is in spring a nesting survey is conducted, population levels are established and shootable number of geese(quota) is established from the results. When you hunt geese you have a report card you carry. Upon shooting a bird you record the bird on the report card and within 48 hours must register the kill with the DNR. When the numbers reach the quota the season is shut down. There were some years we had 10 day goose seasons.


----------



## jd mn/nd

I live in Minnesota and I have taken the time to read most of the posts on this subject there are several issues that need to be addressed first nobody owns any migratory bird in any state or country. Secondly the law suit is not about non-residents being able to hunt more deer or just the big bucks. It is about how the state and federal lands are being used, and about who is using them and when. Thirdly I did not here any one in any state say that NR's from any state are being ripped off on NR lisc fees every state should and does charge more for NR's than for residents of that state. I have hunted in North Dakota since I was seven years old ( no I was not allowed to hunt, just to go with until I was 12) some of the best memories I have of hunting with my dad are from hunts that took place in ND, We have hunted in the same area for the last 30 plus years never have I had anyone tell me that I was not welcome to hunt there or that they were mad about our group spending money in there city or state. Let's face it guys just in NR waterfowl lisc fees alone for ND it was 3million dollars spent last year. If 175,000 residents spent $25.00 on a resident lisc last year it comes out to $4,375,000 now we all know that most likely there were not that many resident hunters, so on a percentage bases NR's generated 69% of the waterfowl lisc fees last year. A percentage of every NR lisc went to purchasing more land for habitat and waterfowl rest areas according to the ND Legislation. These lands were to be owned and managed by the State not federal management. Now lets look at it from another angle if we removed 69% of all hunting money from your state how much land and or waterfowl rest areas would North Dakota have? Lets keep this about the facts not hypothetical situations. If the residents of North Dakota dont want non residents coming there to spend their money than don't go let them find out how impoverished their state will become with no new money coming through it. The city were I own a house and three city lots in ND the people there are ALWAYS happy to see us come there and spend our money and they invite us back to hunt on their land every year they are very upset about what their governor is doing to them they have already felt the effects of the last two years of game playing. at least three business in the small twon have had to close because of the restricted lisc. numbers so now there are at least three families with out a job or an income, how about the rest the small towns in ND the only ones that have lodged complaints about the NR's are the people in the bigger cities Fargo,HMMM like they never come in to MN!! Grand Forks HMMM same thing there, Valley City not far from the boarder, James Town there again not far over the boarder and of the number of complaints listed how many of them actually own farms and make their living from the land? Not many I am sure those folks are really the only ones who have any reason to complain about anything. Lets get real here were are talking about a sport here that apparently we are all very passionate about, and if we all care as much as we say we do and the state of ND has more and higher populations of all kinds of birds upland and waterfowl and those number are not deceasing at an alarming rate what is the real problem here. It would appear that the DNR is doing their job, the sportsman are doing there job, will some one tell me what the big deal is about not being to hunt on state managed land for the first seven days big deal most of us don't even hunt on the stateland we hunt on private and you can hunt on private land for the first seven days. Please stop picking sides and learn to get along you are suppose to be adults ACT LIKE IT!! and stop making idle threats like leasing all of the land up so that non-residents can't hunt there if your that wealthy you can afford to go anywhere you want to live and to hunt so stop with threats it only makes you look foolish!! Oh and MN's habitate is not so bad last year almost every resident was able to take two deer on one lisc. and non-residents were not denied a deer lisc. as they can purchased over the counter in MN. oh our NR fees are not as expensive as ND.!! please from now on if you wish make a point speak intellegently and accuratly as well. :sniper:


----------



## fishhook

Dang jd....lossing up the neck tie...i think your choking in your own saliva. Chill buddy. I think everyone would agree ND does not OWN the migratory birds. But I spend money here almost 365 days (yes i too leave the state periodically) a year, and don't tell me in your 10-15 days here you spend more than me...doesn't happen. It's about the rights we should have as citizens. YES, we are all americans, but we choose to live in a state that has good hunting, we should have the first rights too that every year period. If you want our rights, move here, we could use the population.

I know since we have had more and more non-resident hunters the hunting has went down the tube for me...without a doubt. I have, however, adapted. BUT, enough is enough, it needs restrictions. It would be nice to have waterfowl to hunt after the 2nd weekend of the season. It seems the past 4-5 years if you don't time it just right, you shouldn't even have bothered. The birds are pushed through so fast there is a small window to get a few.


----------



## Field Hunter

jd, I can understand (not agree) with most of you NR take on things. When you're on the outside looking in many things may seem a little strange....you know, kind of like be denied the right to use MN lakes for NR youth waterfowl hunting....I think the DNR said something like....it only allows resident youth to hunt to protect the quality of the experience!

Can you understand this? ZONES and CAPS in those zones! Read some more of the posts. You'll become a little more enlightened as to what's been going on the last 2 years.


----------



## Brad Anderson

Jd, first this state existed and maintained itself long before any NR were spending money here for hunting! So don't act like NR hunters are maintaining this great state of ours. Thats right, hunting isn't economic development is it?? It only lasts for 3 months outta every year. If you base your business model on that 3 months and fail, who's fault is it??

And who was complaining about stateland?? I'm not sure what you were trying to say, but I think I figured it out. And do you really want to know how much of those license fees actually get spent each year. Along those same lines, the $3,000,000 obtained through NR waterfowl licenses, is chump change compared to how much residents pay in STATE INCOME TAXES each year. Why is it people think they own a state just cause they spend a couple hundred dollars there each year??

ND is fianlly waking up and restricting NR. We should have followed SD example when they first started restricting NR. If ya don't like the rules in ND, hunt somewhere else.


----------



## Eric Hustad

I agree. Quit talking like the nonresident is saving the state. I am getting tired of how concerened people are about the small town and economy of ND. Well where are they the other 9 months of the year?? What if hunting turns lousy because of no restrictions?? You guys that save us in the fall gonna step in and give money to make up for the shortfall?? I say mind your own business when governing your state and leave us alone.

By the way NR resident pheasant licenses were higher last year so you guide outfits can quit trying to blame fargo for a loss in hunters, didn't happen so what credibiltiy do you have now?? People just aren't going to drive/pay when they can hunt closer to town......


----------



## Brad Anderson

To further your point Eric, how bout the next extreme drought. ND is prone to some of the harshest conditions in N America. Where will all the NR hunter be then?? They will just find somewhere else to hunt, and proly still whine bout that.

I've only hunted in one other state in my life, MT. I never once complained about paying $476 for a elk/deer tag. I never once complained about hunting access/restrictions. I was just glad to be givin the chance to hunt somewhere else. Why can't everybody just be happy with what ya got??


----------



## tumblebuck

I'm sure this has been said here before, but it needs to be said again. The reason the small towns of ND are struggling is because of the death of the family farm...NOT SPENDING BY NR HUNTERS....or resident hunters for that matter. Fewer farms=less families=fewer local $. I don't doubt that the increased dollars spent during hunting season are a welcome "shot-in-the-arm" (man, I hate that phrase. What are these people? Drug addicts?)

A business cannot survive on three months worth of income....and I'm willing to bet 80% of this occurs in one month. Once October is over, the NR herd is much thinner. Where is the money then?


----------



## HUNTNFISHND

jd,

Two questions for you,

1. How does the small town that you own property in survive when your not here hunting?

2. You talk about how much stuff costs outside ND, why don't you move here and take a pay cut and see how tuff it is?

You sound like a typical Cities boy! You all think that we should bow down and kiss your shoes when your here because of the money that you throw around! :******:


----------



## jd mn/nd

Hey I never said that NR's are end all be all of the states survival all I said was that in some small towns they are happy to see the extra income that would not otherwise be there and to answer someone elses question I dont only go to my house to hunt I also spend a fair amount of time there during the summer and spring working on my house or vacationing I enjoy spending time there other times of the year I also have a lot of family in ND and even more friends funny though none of them talk like you folks they are not at all greedy about having us come there to hunt with them, and share the right to hunt in ND, I know for a fact that the majority of the poopulation does not feel like some of you do about this issue. I have spent a lot of time talking with many different people in ND, ALL of whom are still happy to see come to ND any time not just during hunting season and yes my family also comes with on the non-hunting trips. Oh and I do intend to retire to ND in 20 years and become a resident that is how much I have liked spending time in ND.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg

Tumblebuck :thumb: good post!!!


----------



## lynxx69

Brad Anderson said:


> Jd, first this state existed and maintained itself long before any NR were spending money here for hunting! So don't act Why is it people think they own a state just cause they spend a couple hundred dollars there each year??
> 
> Ah just for you information I spend well over a couple hundred dollars a year... and the point isn't that it isn't that much money its the fact that the money is going into the states and actually if you talk to some smaller towns in the west with crop and livestock prices and what not hunting is a HUGE part of their income....I am sure someone is going to say you throw your money around bla bla bla and whatever but I live in a small community in MN and here the people work together and except outsiders.... We are just fortunate that our farm land is superior to most and we can survive off of that but many communities IN ND have hill and dry dry land but have pheasants or waterfowl or whatever and thats all extra income that IS not there without hunters... And the fact that we our out of state means we sepnd more money..... because many of us are much farther away from home and are there at the bars or whatever to have a good time and spend money.... Get away from everything back home....


----------



## Brad Anderson

Yep, bow down to the NR hunters.... They know all. Thats why hunting in your own state sucks... Bla Bla Bla... Do you hear what your saying??

Once again, I drive this far, it entiles me to this and that. SAD!! You city boyz have no idea!!

Stay at home!! That is ALL you know. Don't worry bout me. I grew up here, and I got connections. All your tyrades fall on deaf ears.

Callmecrazy, where are you at?? Your boys need a little insight??


----------



## ottertail

Numbers of total hunters

MINNESOTA

Participants - resident 568,000  
-non res 29,000
Percentage of population-res 11.5% 
Expenditures- all $482,614,000

NORTH DAKOTA

Participants (resident) 87,000 
(non-res) 52,000

Percentage of population-res 13.6%

Expenditures- all $103,353,000

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife

25,000 MN hunters hunt in ND each year. That makes about 5% of MN total hunters.

That means 95% of MN hunters dont care about NR restrictions.

I think ND needs to focus on its land use problems with Guides and outfitters before all this NR squabbling. Its only going to get worse. Zone it.


----------



## snowflake

the more I look at all this n.r.squabble on this site,the more I wonder what the hell all the fuss is about!I guess I'm pretty old-school,but aren't all of us hunters,no matter where we live,of a common thread? Yes I do believea state should be the regulating force in their individual game mgt. scheme,but for a few narrow-minded res. to get on here and make a non-res. feel un-wanted in N.D. is a real shame.If I were not informed on this issue,and just some guy lookin for a place to hunt,I would'nt consider N.D.if it were the last damn place on earth to hold a duck,pheasant,goose of what have you.Granted there are alot of guys&gals from Mn. that hunt there,but ya' can't crap on a person because of where they are from.I don't believe you will see another website on the internet that exudes the kind of ill feelings as seen here!In otherwords---GROW-UP!!!!!


----------



## Brad Anderson

If I remember correctly, MN is suing ND. Who's the goose???

Ya don't get your way, and ya cry like little babies.

I know, lets all hold hands and dance around like a bunch of fairies.


----------



## Mr. B

Brad

The Gov., Hatch and a few rich guys are behind the lawsuit. The average hunter is not behind this. (I believe) Please do not lump all NR hunters in one bunch.

The hunters that I know that are worked up about ND are upset at the attitude that they feel is coming from ND. A lot of it comes from someone reading something and misunderstanding it or taking it out of context (on both sides) and then getting worked up about.


----------



## james s melson

Good post ottertail, its only a few vocal "super hunter/super conservationists" that are the problem over there, I think they are sharing the same computer.


----------



## fishhook

Ottertail....This is a way of helping solve the gaming outfitter problem. Do you really think locals are paying 4-5 hundred or more a day to shoot some birds?? It is non-residents coming in looking for the big kill without any work. Please don't think I'm trying to catagorize you all in that arena, because i know many come over here and freelance hunt. BUT, the fact is if go's were depending on residents to make $$$ they would all go out of business.


----------



## fishhook

ps....james if that is your 2 cents, you better ask for your change back.


----------



## Brad Anderson

Hmmmm... G/O and NR, a strong correlation. Who on earth would pay for birds?? Those super hunters!


----------



## snowflake

Brad,if ya'wanna' dance around like a fairy,join hands w/the rest of the folks that share your outlook,and get froggy!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The rest of us will try to make some sense out all this and maybe find some middle ground to at least appease the majority and not the minority :beer:


----------



## Brad Anderson

The majority that lives across the river, or the majority that lives in this great state?

Or even better, maybe we should be more concerned about whats going on in MN. I can't even fathom why so many NR are worried about whats going on in other states. When everybody starts to worry about their own state, we will all finally get along.

Don't take ND for granted. You are guests. Act accordingly. Don't come here and act like you own the place. And ya wonder why residents are mad. Tell your kids what to do, not ND.


----------



## snowflake

N.D.,s problem is not guys like me! Although I know I can freelance hunt there I still ask permission cause thats the way I was raised.To respect other's property and have the respect for the land owner,and his land!I've stated before,I have alot of relatives in N.D.,all farmers,and they would rather see a n.r. ask permission than a res. thinking they can do as they damn well please on their land w/o so much as a howdoyado.Most of these folks are sick and tired of,what I heard called,ValleyPolitics,shoved down their throats.These are the people I was referring to as the majority,and they are w. of the river,and feed the game you hunt!!!Actually one of my relatives may post off his 10,000 acres because of being taken advantage of by res. hunters and only let relatives hunt it and that would be ME!!!!


----------



## ottertail

The concern I have is not with the NR restrictions or whose dollars goes where or even between states. Its long term. Its action - reaction. The O/G who buy up leases and land - advertise & advertise. From NY to LA to Corporate and rich. Have you seen a sport show lately. Booths and booths of ND & SD outfitters saying "come hear - fanf'ntastic" they dont worry about this latest restriction- it doesnt affect them. Money talks. Do you think the outfitters are going to let the restrictions affect their business? Soft dollars talk louder. Why did the new restrictions leave the O/G alone? It really doesnt matter that ND res wont pay O/G's. Either do I and never will. "Corporate America" is coming to your hometown ND. I am not telling, but asking you to keep it out.


----------



## Brad Anderson

The G/O lobby heavy in the legislature. They will do anything to get their way. This next legislative season will hopefully curtail some of their activites.

The infamous "valley" you speak of, is inhabited by people from rural ND. Rural ND doesn't have much in the way of office jobs, so people have to go where the jobs are. I find the term "valley politics" ambiguous. We might live in the valley, but our roots are in rural ND.

I hunt a lot of the same land over and over each year. The farmers know me by name. When I keep showing up day after day, their response is, "you don't need to ask anymore." Basically I'm told to drive by, honk and wave.

Last time I checked ND didn't have a No Trespass Law. Its pretty hard to find landowners when you don't know who owns the land.


----------



## Bob Kellam

Hi everyone GREAT! SITE I have spent the last day catching up (I joined this group yesterday) I am a "Valley" resident but my heart is in central ND grew up with lots of memories of hunting from Woodworth to Wishek. I hunt solo these days as I learned that if you go to ask for permission and you are with a group that looks like they just knocked over a Gander Mountain store you will be denied most of the time. I hunt most of ND below I-94 and have had an awesome season this year from all seasons that I hunted. I have found that if you go up and visit with the landowners they will even tell you where to hunt. I have developed relationships with some of the landowners. and every year I make sure to mail the a gift certificate after hunting so they can go have a nice meal in the "valley". The "valley" is not all bad, it is just a few that spoil it for all.


> The land is the resource, the game we hunt is only an occupant of the resource.


----------



## Eric Hustad

Welcome aboard Open Field :beer:

Good stuff guys. This is an observation from hunting and living in ND, but I don't think anything can save some of these towns now. You have to get some real businesses in there that provide jobs. They don't have that so kids are forced to leave, businesses close, and the smaller farms are aquired by larger ones. I think hunters Resident and Non. are just providing enough revenue for a few businesses to barely operate, but each year the towns lose a little more. My observation, but that is just from living, working, and talking with clients from around the state.

Oh one more tidbit for Mr. Hatch: I find it pretty funny you are suing a state over the way resources are being managed, but at the same time your daughters are all over the papers for drunk and disorderly(again). How about paying more attention to what really matters.....


----------



## Brad Anderson

HAHAHA


----------



## wiscan22

Brad Anderson said:


> The majority that lives across the river, or the majority that lives in this great state?
> 
> Or even better, maybe we should be more concerned about whats going on in MN. I can't even fathom why so many NR are worried about whats going on in other states. When everybody starts to worry about their own state, we will all finally get along.
> 
> Don't take ND for granted. You are guests. Act accordingly. Don't come here and act like you own the place. And ya wonder why residents are mad. Tell your kids what to do, not ND.


Since when did North Dakota become a soveriegn nation?????? You know Brad, this conversation would go alot further if people would start thinking with there head before they open their mouths. First and foremost my federal dollars go to *YOUR* state if I elect for them to go there or not. Secondly, the ducks and geese that just so happen to fly over your state are NOT *YOUR* birds. As far as me being a guest and being told how to act.... who the hell are you??? Normally pal I'm not a vocal person but unfortunately there are people such as yourself that think just because they buy a hunting license that it entitles them to all rights to the game and fish within the boundries of the state. Lastly, I pay taxes to your state, pay for utilities year round and have been known to donate more than a few dollars to various organizations in your state.... outside of the hunting season. You my friend had better learn how to treat a guest before you start telling how to act!!!!

One more thing.... If yours is an example of the representation of the future of the hunting community, God help us all cause with attitudes like you display, the sportsmans name will surely end up in the mud.


----------



## Eric Hustad

Wiscan keep in mind where the ducks are raised. A part of fed money should be used in the "duck factory" of the country. I know the boys down south are happy when the ducks for the ducks that are produced here....


----------



## wiscan22

Eric Hustad said:


> Wiscan keep in mind where the ducks are raised. A part of fed money should be used in the "duck factory" of the country. I know the boys down south are happy when the ducks for the ducks that are produced here....


Hey Eric,

Thanks for the reasonable response. There is no doubt that ND certainly is part of the "duck factory" however upwards of 80% of North Americas waterfowl is produced in Canada pothole country. That's not saying that ND doesn't contibute because they certainly do but does that give ND the right of ownership to an international bird? This is going to take awhile but let me share something with you that happened with two states that tried just that...Wisconsin & Illinois.

Back about 15 maybe 20 years ago Kentucky and a few other states were making all kinds of noise because they only had a few Canada Geese migrating through there for the winter. They wanted part of the tourist trade that both WI & IL enjoyed plus better hunting opportunity. Well, they caused enough noise to where the politicians got involved at a national level. A few facts that I'm sure you're aware of:

Most of the geese that migrate stop in southern Illinois to winter. Few go much further south than that.

The season was 90+ days long period.

It was a real bonus to get a Canada Goose.

The political involvement also brought the USF&W in on the "problem" and hence the Mississippi Valley Flyway Council which consisted of 14 states was established. Their job... to manage the MVP geese and to establish parameters that:

a) Guaranteed the survival of a sustainable/breeding population of Canada Geese.

b) Establish fair parameters for seasons that would give equal opportunity to all states involved.

How would this be accomplished? By establishing quotas, seasnon bag limits and lengths based on spring hatching surveys and summer brood counts. It also brought with it "emergency closings" when the quota was met. How do you know when the quota was met? By establishing zones and by requiring registration of all geese taken.

At the time this occurred Wisconsin and Illinois were not only the two major states where most geese were shot, we also suffered the most crop damage and monetary costs to provide and maintain habitat during the goose migration. Needless to say we were not at all very happy abount this. After many mud slinging contests both Wisconsin and Illinois threatened to feed the geese through the winter to keep them in OUR states. You know what the Feds said.... go ahead, first you will get no money from us. Second, you will get no season at all and we will send every agent we can afford to send to make sure this happens. Guess what? We lost. We were rewarded with a number of 10 day seasons.... that would be 10 days per year and we also had 4 or 5 years of emergency closings because our quota was set. Point being is it doesn't matter if you produce, stage or set up Hiatt Regency Hotels for the birds. Bottom line is they are not yours.

Nice reward for the state that is the #1 donor of DU eh? Not to mention the state organization that was formed 20 or so years ago Wisconsin Waterfowl Association (WWA) that funds thousands of wetland projects instate.

I've noticed that ND also likes to compare itself to SD and would like to see a small amount of NR licenses sold like SD does. I think the number is around 3700. The only thing is Eric, SD has pheasants, lots of 'em and that's what their reputation is built on. Do you ever see a day where they will limit pheasant hunting? I seriously doubt it.

No offense Eric but after seeing the posts in this forum and after 26 years of hunting ND I'm totally shocked. It certainly isn't the way it was when we initially started coming out. If this is the future of what hunting is all about and if the message ND wants to send which it obviously does, my duck my duck, I want absolutely NO part of it. That sir in my humble opinion is definitely NOT what the sport of hunting is all about. As much as I was against registering my gun to go to Canada, that option doesn't seem like such a bad option anymore. So hey, shoot 'em up, your ducks and all, if that's what this whole thing is all about or maybe we should refer to them as Goosebuster3 does.... little white bastards. 
Have a great holiday.


----------



## indsport

To those on this thread that want to see more information, see the following page:http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/reports/status03/trend.pdf

Based on 2002 and 2003 data, the prairie pothole region (ppr) of MT. ND and SD has between 20 - 25% of the breeding population of ducks. The PPR of Canada holds about 35 - 40% of the breeding population of ducks. The remainder are in the boreal forest of Canada and Alaska. Production of ducks in the ppr of the dakotas is higher than ppr Canada, mostly due to CRP. Numbers of ducks produced in the ppr of the Dakotas is similiar to numbers of ducks produced in the ppr of Canada. On this basis, I suggest readers to this thread review the numbers. 
I agree that ducks are not the property of any one state and agree that all waterfowl hunters contribute to habitat acquisition and management but the data shows that FWS land in north dakota represents less than 5% of land in North Dakota is owned or has easements by FWS (of which about half of this is open to hunting and in addition, the estimate is that over 85% of all ducks produced in North Dakota comes from private lands. I welcome all non residents to hunt on their 2.5% of the land base acquired by their duck stamp dollars. The main concern of reasonable sportsmen in North Dakota is the sustainability of the resource. In 2002 and 2003, we have had an average of 28,000 non resident waterfowl hunters (NDGF data), compared to South Dakota's 4000. At the same time, this number represents an increase of over 20,000 non residents from the long term average from 1990-2000. The question then becomes, can North Dakota alone sustain that much pressure on the resource over the long term?


----------



## KEN W

One question wisccan...are you going to Canada because they have better hunting based on less pressure,or because of our new regulations...because if it's the former...your arguement has no legs to stand on.

Afterall...their license cost more than ours,you drive further,we don't reguire gun registration and charge you $50 everytime you cross our border with your gun.

This is not a case of "my duck,my duck"...it's a matter of preserving high quality free-lance hunting.Why wouldn't we want to save that????


----------



## Field Hunter

Anyone know or remember WHY the NRs can't hunt more than 14 days like prior to the 70's? Well in case some of you resident and NR alike don't know it was in large part because the NRs were leasing the duck land more and more every year, locking out more and more residents every year.


----------



## Dick Monson

*indsport wrote:*


> In 2002 and 2003, we have had an average of 28,000 non resident waterfowl hunters (NDGF data), compared to South Dakota's 4000. At the same time, this number represents an increase of over 20,000 non residents from the long term average from 1990-2000. The question then becomes, can North Dakota alone sustain that much pressure on the resource over the long term?


The answer of course is *no*, it cannot. The evidence is clear by the movement of birds into South Dakota. Resource extractors demand regulations benifical to their business interests in a few key counties, while in fact the regulations affect all 53 counties in ND and all communities statewide.
Field Hunter made an excellent point. The 1970s regulation of seasons and zones was brought on by a commercial explosion of leasing, including by many professional sports teams. While ND had more total waterfowl hunters then, the draining and habitat destruction was only a fraction of what it is now. There were hardly any outfitters either.

This drive to commercialze the resource entails all game species in ND, waterfowl is only one part of the overall problem.


----------



## wiscan22

KEN W said:


> One question wisccan...are you going to Canada because they have better hunting based on less pressure,or because of our new regulations...because if it's the former...your arguement has no legs to stand on.
> 
> Afterall...their license cost more than ours,you drive further,we don't reguire gun registration and charge you $50 everytime you cross our border with your gun.
> 
> This is not a case of "my duck,my duck"...it's a matter of preserving high quality free-lance hunting.Why wouldn't we want to save that????


Hey Ken, 
Actually a combination of both.... and please read the sentence as stated:

_As much as I was against registering my gun to go to Canada, that option doesn't seem like such a bad option anymore._

Having an option and exercising the option are two different things. Obviously, I want to keep my money in our country. That's where it's going to do the most work. That is also why I supported ND for the last 26 years. However, if I'm going to have to be treated like a foreigner, hunt only certain lands and be treated like a piece of sh*t, kind of takes away from the most important part of the hunt.... the experience and quality. Seems kind of funny to be teachin my kid that all men are equal unless of course you go hunting in ND.... then son you're an underling. How bout this quote form Brad A.....* Don't take ND for granted. You are guests. Act accordingly. Don't come here and act like you own the place. And ya wonder why residents are mad. Tell your kids what to do, not ND.* Sounds like a sound ethics program to me. I have since asked Brad when ND became a soveriegn nation.

I As far as the cost goes and as stated in previous posts, I really have no problem being restricted to hunt waterfowl for 14 days in one zone or another as this has been the basic framework since I've been hunting ND. I do however have a problem with ND telling an NR that they can't hunt certain state lands or will be rationed the opportunity based on quotas, ie: SD. I know you're not going to agree with me but the bottom line is alot of my license fees go to support and developement of those lands and now I can't hunt them but residents can. I have no probelm paying my way to hunt waterfowl but I do have a problem paying for an exclusive hunting preserve. Once again and as stated this is not about pheasants because where we hunt there are none but there was some awfully darn good PLOTS land closed to us last year during the peak of the waterfowl migration. That's a huge problem to me. Do I agree with cost increases? To a degree but when a state takes the steps ND took, I personally think it was a bit too severe. Is it justifiable to raise the rates plus make a small game license only good for 10 days? Oh, but you can buy more than one per year. Waterfowl and small game use to be a combined license. Now they're seperate. The waterfowl license structure didn't change but neither did the costs. Taking all those factors into consideration, I'd say that was drastic.

indsport states that only 2.5% of the federal land was _aquired_ throught the federal duck stamp program which may or may not be true. The link he posted deals only with waterfowl breeding populations. I have no idea where he got the rest of the info but it's not there. Anyway, getting back to the federal money issue. What about CRP? You're probably not going to agree with this next statement either but if it wasn't for the extra NR money, the extra Federal money the DU money, the Delta money, I really don't think your waterfowl program would be as successful as it is. And no offense, you guys act like you did it all on your own and th bottom line is you had help.


----------



## Dick Monson

wiscan don't agrue facts with indsport, he has them stone cold. There are a little over 3,000,000 acres of CRP here. PLOTS mostly applies in the Pheasant Belt, and amounted roughly to 10% of total CRP acres. You were only restricted from those PLOTS (CRP) the first week and still had 2,700,00 acres of CRP and about 44,000,000 acres of private land to hunt. If that deal isn't good enough some folks are too hard to please. Really how much is enough?


----------



## buckseye

Good one Dick, thats the best reply I've read. Really what more could anyone ask for. 8)


----------



## stevepike

wiscan wrote


> Once again and as stated this is not about pheasants because where we hunt there are none but there was some awfully darn good PLOTS land closed to us last year during the peak of the waterfowl migration.


When was the peak of the waterfowl migration where you were? Are you saying the first week was the peak?


----------



## KEN W

Sorry Wiscan,but you are talking as a non-res.Maybe I would too if I didn't live here...but I do live here and I don't know of any resident that was opposed to the PLOTS regulation.I don't see that changing either, since it doesn't affect the G/O.

Just pick a different week...problem solved.


----------



## wiscan22

Dick Monson said:


> wiscan don't agrue facts with indsport, he has them stone cold. There are a little over 3,000,000 acres of CRP here. PLOTS mostly applies in the Pheasant Belt, and amounted roughly to 10% of total CRP acres. You were only restricted from those PLOTS (CRP) the first week and still had 2,700,00 acres of CRP and about 44,000,000 acres of private land to hunt. If that deal isn't good enough some folks are too hard to please. Really how much is enough?


I'm going to try to answer three posts at once.

First, I have no idea who indsport is and the sources he stated only covered a small portion of his post. I followed his link and it didn't prove everything he stated. I have since been on the USFW website and have yet been able to confirm any of the info he stated. As far as being stone cold facts, I was also told stone cold facts by Sarah Brady, unfortunately I'm the NRA.

Where and when we hunt if you make it past the third week in October without a major snowstorm/cold front passing through, you're lucky. For the last two years we were there (October 11-19-02 and 10-18-13) we had the priviledge of seeing the migration pass in about two or three days, have our trucks buried in snow(02) and see all the snows and blues we wanted to.... going down 94 on the way home. Not that it matters because I never shot more than 15 ducks total the whole time I was there. Just had a great time.

A little background on the PLOTS thing. Initially when this was presented it was meant to protect ND pheasant hunters and was printed as such not only on NDF&G but also on the ND Government site. It wasn't until about 2 weeks after passage that the ND Atty. General offered an opinion that stated the way the law was written "closed to NR hunters meant all game" obviouly meaning all hunting. It's been stated including on this site, that that was not the intent of the lawmakers but thats what happened.

Your quote about having 44,000,000 acres to hunt is pretty lame Dick. I've only got 14 days to hunt your ducks in your state of which I can only take off of work for 10 days of the 14... my choice of course.


----------



## Field Hunter

It sounds like you hunt public land that happens to be PLOTS land. As Dick said there are so many other areas to hunt. I have a hard time believing that the restrictions had any effect on anyones hunt....unless you never hunt on or ask to hunt on private land. You talk like the PLOTS lands are the best areas in the state to hunt. And almost every resident I talked to last year was VERY HAPPY with the lack of hunters the first week of the season...you know the lack of a certains state's vehicles, and in some cases vehicles camping on PLOTS lands to get first crack at it in the morning. You are right, it wasn't intended to be for all game but turned out that way. Get over it, though, I really don't think you're going to see it changed back.


----------



## Dick Monson

wiscan, don't take my word for it, pm indsport. I know him in person and his material is stone cold solid. He can give you more data than 10 men can read. If he doesn't, his co-workers would be glad to.

Many here sat through the hearings on HB1223, and it was presented and passed in just the manner of present form. Period. Don't soft pedal this baby that it was a typo error to close *ALL* PLOTS that week. The natural resource extractors thought they pulled a fast one with "pheasant season only" option. Sportsmen were never more united than on the enforcement of this bill as written. And it took a *sportsman *appeal to the AG to make damn sure it was printed correctly. (they keep forgeting Pheasantgate, pretending it never happened) Not trying to break hard on you, you seem like a stand up guy. Good luck next season and cross your trigger fingers that the FB lawsuit gets canned where it belongs.


----------



## wiscan22

Field Hunter said:


> It sounds like you hunt public land that happens to be PLOTS land. As Dick said there are so many other areas to hunt. I have a hard time believing that the restrictions had any effect on anyones hunt....unless you never hunt on or ask to hunt on private land. You talk like the PLOTS lands are the best areas in the state to hunt. And almost every resident I talked to last year was VERY HAPPY with the lack of hunters the first week of the season...you know the lack of a certains state's vehicles, and in some cases vehicles camping on PLOTS lands to get first crack at it in the morning. You are right, it wasn't intended to be for all game but turned out that way. Get over it, though, I really don't think you're going to see it changed back.


Actually we hunt alot of private land which quite frankly we are welcomed on very warmly. Last year was probably an exception because there was little water and guess what land held the water. You guessed it, PLOTS. The agravating thing about it was in the 9 days we were there I didn't see one person hunting the land. As a matter of fact in those nine days I personally shot 6 ducks and 9 geese.... not that I'm bragging or anything.
We never really saw anyone camping so I'm assuming that you hunt in a somewhat popular densely populated area. The biggest area we have trouble in and the one that's really grown in the last 15 or so years is Guide hunting land being leased up and corporate leased purchased land. It's really getting bad and I would think that that would be a Residents main area of contention. As far as me getting over it there's really nothing to get over. It's the law and you're right, it won't change. But that doesn't mean it won't leave a sour taste in your mouths. Come on guys don't BS me anymore. If it was you in the same shoes you'd be uset with it too.


----------



## Brad Anderson

ND has it all. Today was proof. And why would I wanna go anywhere else??

Wiscan, you seem to have all the answers. Why don't you move to ND and run for governor.

You pay federal taxes, huh. So do I and everyone else in this nation. I'm sure 99% of the fed taxes I pay don't stay in ND. Don't hear me complaining. Along the same lines, $200 to hunt ducks and pheasants isn't all that much.

If all you hunt are the plots, don't hunt during the 1st week of pheasant season. Simple solution. If I remember correctly, SD won't even let NR hunt pheasants the first week of season. Is that fair??

Last time I checked, 100% of the federal duck stamp money wasn't spent in ND alone. I keep hearing the same theme over and over. Since I spend money on certain things I'm entitled to this and that. It doesn't work that way. SORRY

If ND rules aren't fair or ya don't like them, go somewhere else. The same ol' complaints over and over.....


----------



## wiscan22

Dick Monson said:


> wiscan, don't take my word for it, pm indsport. I know him in person and his material is stone cold solid. He can give you more data than 10 men can read. If he doesn't, his co-workers would be glad to.
> 
> Many here sat through the hearings on HB1223, and it was presented and passed in just the manner of present form. Period. Don't soft pedal this baby that it was a typo error to close *ALL* PLOTS that week. The natural resource extractors thought they pulled a fast one with "pheasant season only" option. Sportsmen were never more united than on the enforcement of this bill as written. And it took a *sportsman *appeal to the AG to make damn sure it was printed correctly. (they keep forgeting Pheasantgate, pretending it never happened) Not trying to break hard on you, you seem like a stand up guy. Good luck next season and cross your trigger fingers that the FB lawsuit gets canned where it belongs.


Initial publications of the law were published on NDG&F website as a pheasants only restriction. I am kind of the guy who keeps our group up to date on this stuff and all kidding aside got caught with my pants down to my feet. One of my partners called me and asked me for the website address because one of our local friends called him to warn him of this. I told him the friend was wrong as I followed this very closely and it only applied to pheasants. I did two stupid things following that statement.

1.) Didn't check the website to read the final version of the bill.

2.) Bet him a steak dinner that our friend was mistaken..... guess who bought dinner.

Regarding the lawsuit I really don't think it'll go anywhere. Depending on what side of the fence you're on that may or may not be a good prediction. Based on what I've read on this site the vast majority of MN hunters although PO'd at the new regs are not in favor of the lawsuit.

Thanks for the wish of luck.... the same goes to you. I would sincerely hope that if we run into each other in the field that we can disregard the R & NR titles and wish each other a good day in the field.


----------



## wiscan22

Brad Anderson said:


> ND has it all. Today was proof. And why would I wanna go anywhere else??
> 
> Wiscan, you seem to have all the answers. Why don't you move to ND and run for governor.
> 
> You pay federal taxes, huh. So do I and everyone else in this nation. I'm sure 99% of the fed taxes I pay don't stay in ND. Don't hear me complaining. Along the same lines, $200 to hunt ducks and pheasants isn't all that much.
> 
> If all you hunt are the plots, don't hunt during the 1st week of pheasant season. Simple solution. If I remember correctly, SD won't even let NR hunt pheasants the first week of season. Is that fair??
> 
> Last time I checked, 100% of the federal duck stamp money wasn't spent in ND alone. I keep hearing the same theme over and over. Since I spend money on certain things I'm entitled to this and that. It doesn't work that way. SORRY
> 
> If ND rules aren't fair or ya don't like them, go somewhere else. The same ol' complaints over and over.....


You know Brad there's nothing more I'd love to do than move to ND. I think it's a real great state. As far as running for governor.... probably not because the things we are debating here, my feelings and beliefs would remain the same. As far as your statement about what I'm entitled to this is the way I feel.... If I have to pay a license fee that is $180 more than you pay , have to pick a zone to hunt in and am only allowed to hunt 14 days, I think that's restictive enough. As far as SD's closed season to NR's goes I have no problem with that, yes it's fair because a pheasant is not a migratory bird and I have said the same about your state. The big difference is SD leaves the rest of hunting open which I don't think is asking that much.

As far as me having all the answers, I'm glad you feel that way and if you can convince my wife the same I promise I'll never come hunting to ND again.


----------



## wiscan22

Had a little bit of time and checked out indsports web link. The info provided me was the HIP results. Interesting numbers....

2002 Totals:
North Dakota duck harvest numbers... 530,000. 
Number of Fed Duck Stamps sold...... 30,359.
Total Active Duck Hunters.....................34,700.
2002 NR numbers.................................30,000. Sold out license total. 
Average number of ducks per hunter..........15.3

Based on those numbers I'd have to say that there were one hell of alot of hunters not hunting in ND. I know that when I HIP register in ND they don't ask me if I'm a NR or not so I have to assume that I'm in that total. Which group didn't hunt? Either no one in ND (resident) didn't hunt last year or ND got one hell of a nice donation from NR's that never showed up. Anyone care to guess?

More figures....

2002 Totals
Wisconsin duck harvest numbers......529500
Number of Fed Duck Stamps Sold.......70500
Average number of ducks per hunter......7.5

Guess Wisconsin has some of that "all" too Brad!


----------



## KEN W

Wiscan...I sympathize with you on that PLOTS regulation...you should send a bill to our GNF for the steak dinner.

BUT...nowhere did Bill 1223 ever have the word pheasant in it.The GNF did that on their own.When some of us saw that on their web site,we immediately thought that an AG opinion was needed.He had no choice but to make the ruling he did.

Plus it was a lot easier for our wardens to enforce it if no non-res. could hunt it.

As far as no one hunting pressure that week...great...it basically allowed the PLOTS to recuperate and actually allowed for a second opening day for pheasant hunters the following Sat.


----------



## indsport

Okay Wiscan, here is the information that addresses your questions to me in the previous post as well as additional information.

North Dakota contains 63 National Wildlife Refuges, more than any other state. These 63 refuges encompass more than 290,000 acres. In addition, there are 11 Wetland Management Districts with over 254,000 acres of Waterfowl Production Areas.
(http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/refuges/nd/).

North Dakota is slightly larger than 45,000,000 acres (ND Geological Survey)

Waterfowl hunting is usually not allowed on refuges, leaving 254,000 acres of land open to public access for waterfowl hunting. 254,000/45,000,000 = 0.564% of North Dakota land was purchased with duck stamp dollars.

For Breeding duck population estimates, see http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/reports/s ... /trend.pdf
Use table 2 to calculate numbers for percentages of breeding populations comparing S. Alberta, S. Saskatchewan,S. Manitoba/ 31181 for 2002
S. Alberta, S. Saskatchewan,S. Manitoba/ 36225 for 2002
The same type of calcuations apply for Montana and Dakotas

For waterfowl production brood surveys, see http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/reports/w ... akotas.pdf or the other reports
for similiar areas in canada although southern manitoba was not completed in 2002.

For duck nest success information, I recommend http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2000/dnsuc/dnsuc.htm
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2001 ... respon.htm
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2002 ... ckrecr.htm


----------



## wiscan22

KEN W said:


> Wiscan...I sympathize with you on that PLOTS regulation...you should send a bill to our GNF for the steak dinner.
> 
> BUT...nowhere did Bill 1223 ever have the word pheasant in it.The GNF did that on their own.When some of us saw that on their web site,we immediately thought that an AG opinion was needed.He had no choice but to make the ruling he did.
> 
> Plus it was a lot easier for our wardens to enforce it if no non-res. could hunt it.
> 
> As far as no one hunting pressure that week...great...it basically allowed the PLOTS to recuperate and actually allowed for a second opening day for pheasant hunters the following Sat.


Thanks Ken but it was pretty much my own fault.


----------



## wiscan22

indsport said:


> Okay Wiscan, here is the information that addresses your questions to me in the previous post as well as additional information.
> 
> North Dakota contains 63 National Wildlife Refuges, more than any other state. These 63 refuges encompass more than 290,000 acres. In addition, there are 11 Wetland Management Districts with over 254,000 acres of Waterfowl Production Areas.
> (http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/refuges/nd/).
> 
> North Dakota is slightly larger than 45,000,000 acres (ND Geological Survey)
> 
> Waterfowl hunting is usually not allowed on refuges, leaving 254,000 acres of land open to public access for waterfowl hunting. 254,000/45,000,000 = 0.564% of North Dakota land was purchased with duck stamp dollars.
> 
> For Breeding duck population estimates, see http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/reports/s ... /trend.pdf
> Use table 2 to calculate numbers for percentages of breeding populations comparing S. Alberta, S. Saskatchewan,S. Manitoba/ 31181 for 2002
> S. Alberta, S. Saskatchewan,S. Manitoba/ 36225 for 2002
> The same type of calcuations apply for Montana and Dakotas
> 
> For waterfowl production brood surveys, see http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/reports/w ... akotas.pdf or the other reports
> for similiar areas in canada although southern manitoba was not completed in 2002.
> 
> For duck nest success information, I recommend http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2000/dnsuc/dnsuc.htm
> http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2001 ... respon.htm
> http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2002 ... ckrecr.htm


Thanks for the info indsport. Now all I'll need is week to analyze it and by that time the points will be forgotten. With that in mind and seeing you did provide the websites to me, I will assume your info is accurate. Seeing all the emphasis is on the NR though could you just explain the numbers in my post taken from the above sights?

2002 Totals: 
North Dakota duck harvest numbers... 530,000. 
Number of Fed Duck Stamps sold...... 30,359. 
Total Active Duck Hunters.....................34,700. 
2002 NR numbers.................................30,000. Sold out license total. 
Average number of ducks per hunter..........15.3


----------



## indsport

Wiscan,

Actually your numbers are quite easily explainable. First, no information is taken from any individual when a duck stamp is purchased. So anyone who buys a duck stamp in north dakota could be from anywhere and buying the stamp for any reason (e.g. stamp collectors, my own wife who bought a stamp but did not hunt waterfowl last season, anyone from out of state who bought a stamp within the state, etc. etc. etc.). Second, North Dakota duck harvest numbers are an estimate of all waterfowl shot within the state (not an actual bag check) based on a sample. 
Therefore, not all stamps are bought by duck hunters, not all duck hunters that bought stamps actually hunted ducks, not all ducks harvested are actually counted and not all non residents already had bought a stamp before they got here.


----------



## wiscan22

indsport said:


> Wiscan,
> 
> Actually your numbers are quite easily explainable. First, no information is taken from any individual when a duck stamp is purchased. So anyone who buys a duck stamp in north dakota could be from anywhere and buying the stamp for any reason (e.g. stamp collectors, my own wife who bought a stamp but did not hunt waterfowl last season, anyone from out of state who bought a stamp within the state, etc. etc. etc.). Second, North Dakota duck harvest numbers are an estimate of all waterfowl shot within the state (not an actual bag check) based on a sample.
> Therefore, not all stamps are bought by duck hunters, not all duck hunters that bought stamps actually hunted ducks, not all ducks harvested are actually counted and not all non residents already had bought a stamp before they got here.


Hey indsport,

Thanks for the explanation but seeing these figures came from the HIP Preliminary Hunter Activity Report for 2001-02 I would assume that these are figures based on the questions I am asked when I HIP register for the ensuing year.

I understand that many NR's probably purchase their Fed Duck Stamp from their home states and that that number doesn't differentiate hunter from collector, etc. and for alll practical purposes really isn't applicable to what I'm questioning. The area of question is the "Total Active Duck Hunters" number is only 34,000.

Just for the sake of discussion and I don't rememember the exact numbers but if the total NR licenses sold were 30,000 in 2002 and ND resident license numbers say are double that, 60,000, 34,000 active hunters tells me that the actual number of hunters that are really hunting vs the licenses sold is quite low or somebody's not being honest about the reporting requirements which if the latter is the case, this report is not at all accurate deeming it useless.

I'm not doubting your explanation, I am just having a hard time understanding the value and usefulness of the HIP report.


----------



## indsport

"The number of active hunters, the number of birds harvested, the number of days afield, and the average number of birds harvested per active hunter for each species/species group were ESTIMATED at the state level, and the number of days afield and the number of birds harvested were also estimated at the management unit and national levels. Variance estimates for these parameters were also estimated and converted to 95% confidence intervals. The total number of active hunters and the average seasonal bag per active hunter could not be estimated at the management unit or national levels because some people hunted migratory birds in more than one state, thus simply adding the number of active hunters in each state would have overestimated the total number of active hunters and underestimated the average bag per hunter.
Species-specific waterfowl harvest estimates were derived from the Waterfowl Parts Collection Survey, as were special September duck season estimates."

the variance of the estimate at 95% was +/- 6% for North Dakota which means that it could have been as low as ~32600 or as high as ~36800 or even farther higher or lower numbers.


----------



## wiscan22

indsport said:


> "The number of active hunters, the number of birds harvested, the number of days afield, and the average number of birds harvested per active hunter for each species/species group were ESTIMATED at the state level, and the number of days afield and the number of birds harvested were also estimated at the management unit and national levels. Variance estimates for these parameters were also estimated and converted to 95% confidence intervals. The total number of active hunters and the average seasonal bag per active hunter could not be estimated at the management unit or national levels because some people hunted migratory birds in more than one state, thus simply adding the number of active hunters in each state would have overestimated the total number of active hunters and underestimated the average bag per hunter.
> Species-specific waterfowl harvest estimates were derived from the Waterfowl Parts Collection Survey, as were special September duck season estimates."
> 
> the variance of the estimate at 95% was +/- 6% for North Dakota which means that it could have been as low as ~32600 or as high as ~36800 or even farther higher or lower numbers.


Thanks again and I appreciate the explaination. So based on the info we have infront of us ( ie; HIP report), is it really a threat that ND is in danger of being overhunted. We in Wisconsin have twice that amount of hunters and the hunting is great. It's just a different kind (field, hardly any water hunting where I am) which is OK but not any where near as exciting as a flock of ducks coming into a setup. Anyway, the biggest problem we face is the same as you guys are.... I think. We have alot of Corporate leases and hunting club leases, mostly with private land. I'm having a hard time distinguishing who the guilty party is in ND as I hear most of the complaining being aimed generally at the NR and not at Guide / Corporate land leasing. We hardly ever run into a section of land that is posted by an NR but the guide thing is another story.


----------



## jd mn/nd

Hey guys I have a question for all of you. Everybody keeps talking about caps on the limit of birds shot in ND why is it than that limit on snows and blues are 20 per day and like 60 in possecion? How many of you have actually, truthfully have shot that many snows in one day? Secondly did you all know that the reason the limit is so high is because they are eating themselves out of house and home on the tundra much of nutriants that they need to reproduce is vanishing because of the over population. Hence the reason for two seasons (spring and fall). Ken W you have made several comments on having too many NR's the last two years as have driven through Bottineau I have noticed that the motels are not full, in the past if you did'nt book your room the year prior you did not have a place to stay. How has that effected the town? One other factor that is important is that the canadians built a huge resevour just over the boarder that holds thousands of geese and they stay there until they cant find food and then move through ND in just a few days hence the reason we don't the hnts of old days. I you don't beleive me take a drive up there sometime you will be amazed at what you will see. The body of water is several thousand acres and the geese sit in the middle of it. And Mr. Brad Anderson for your information I have hunted there even on the dry years when there was not any water to be found and we have still had excellent hunting granted not as good as when there is water, but still good hunting. why is it that you hate all Nr's so much? do you have any friends that don't live in ND? If so I certainly hope you do not treat them the way you talk to people on this web site. Brad please try to contain or tone down your dislike for NR's we all got the message! :bowdown:


----------



## KEN W

jd...show me the post where I said there were too many NR at Bottineau???


----------



## Goldy's Pal

Well then, where are there too many??? :huh:


----------



## Brad Anderson

I and many others have shot a limit of snows in one day. That was 1998, now they get PUSHED through so fast you don't even see that many (fall).

My concern with NR started with all the complaining. For example, the fact NR can't hunt on plots the first week of pheasant season. You would have thought ND banned all NR hunter outright. Then you get people like JMS, who thinks just casue he drives a couple hundred miles he is entitled to certain things. Then the license increases and the zones... etc etc

My favorite is the people who think their money is saving rural ND. These people are the most confused of the bunch. Sure it helps, but 1-2 months out of a year isn't going to save anything. Just prolonging the enevitable.

I find it rather amusing people are more concerned about whats going on in ND, than whats going on in their home state. Why is this??

I have stated many times, I've only hunted outside ND ONCE. I didn't whine about high license fees, preferential treatment and so on.


----------



## Bob Kellam

I hunt Minnesota for ruff grouse every year it is what I chose to do and I will never grumble about the price of the license, NEVER! I do not feel that anyone owes me anything when I hunt Minnesota or South Dakota, every state has there own unique form of hunting, again I make a choice to do it.

those of you that think the price is to high or that ND is somehow limiting your experience GET OVER IT!!. you have a choice.


----------



## Goldy's Pal

Who's grumbling about the price?? Raise it, I don't care. Tell me where all your pressure is like I asked. I've never seen another hunter in ND other than the ND resident hunter who's dog ran around loose half the morning where we were set up. And yes we were there first and he didn't have permission to even be there to begin with. I'll tell you where all our deer are in Minn. and where all the pressure is here if you want to know. We had great hunting in one area for years and now we don't. Now I hunt deer somewhere else away from people and it's great. I dont complain. I just adapted. Something that obviously some of you don't like to do, or feel that you should have to do. Isn't that the bottom line here??


----------



## Dan Bueide

Goldy, don't confuse a lack of strong response to your question as an indication "you got us." I hunt N/S along a band 40 miles or so from the North border all the way to the South border. Heavy, increasing pressure throughout.

And it's not just the numbers, it the quarry and the days. The last itme we saw pressure like we've had the last 4 years or so was in the mid 70's. Then, the mix was about 10-1 R/NR. The hunters generally were spread among snows and ducks, maybe even heavier snows. The vast majority of hunters only hunted weekends, so the birds got to settle for the most part during the week.

Now, it's pretty much all-ducks-all-week. Why do they now settle into the North 50 miles of SD? Why for the most part, do the snows show up late and blow through? IMHO, the ag and water changes in Canada don't tell the whole story. These birds live long (25+ years) and many long-time snow hunters will tell you the snow goose has evolved thousands of years in the last 20 or so. Where have the ducks gone in the traditional hot spots down South? Unless we want to permanently turn ND into a duck hatchery and fly-over state, we need to loose some overall pressure, varied depending upon available habitat.

Pressure takes on may forms and has many effects. The fact you see few hunters during the week in one particular township doesn't mean ND doesn't have a very serious overall pressure problem.


----------



## gandergrinder

Heres a start. Start at Lakota drive west on highway 2 all the way to Leeds and 50 miles north and south of this line. There is to much pressure. The Southeast part of the state around Teuwaken to Rutland and around this area there is to much pressure. These are two areas that I hunt that have seen dramatic increases in hunter pressure in the last few years.

The hunting has become progressively worse not only from the standpoint of bird numbers for the duration of the season but also the number of what I call contact with other hunters. Good hunting to me is not waking up and racing someone to the field in the morning or setting up next to someone else in the slough. I can go hunting and shoot no birds and still enjoy myself. But if I have to race other people and deal with guys setting up next to me it doesn't matter if I shoot birds, the whole point of why I like hunting, the solitude, is gone.

You can only adapt so long before there is no longer any place to adapt to. With less and less water and more and more hunters the problems only escalate. Pressure increases on the birds and hunters run into each other more and more. This is good neither for the bird or the hunter.


----------



## james s melson

Some people drive hundreds of mile to hunt migratory birds because they love to hunt, some just want to have it close to home and keep others out, right Brad?


----------



## jd mn/nd

Ken W, I sincerely apologize for the error of mistaking your post with someone eleses I did not take the time to go back and all of the posts to correctly name the qouter. However I am sorry that I named you as that was not correct next time I am in Bottineau I will buy a drink or two, if you leave some way of contacting you maybe we can hook up to do some hunting.


----------



## Dan Bueide

jms, if all you want to do is "hunt", why drive hundreds of miles? Bet you can find 200 spots within 50 miles of your home to "hunt". It's more than a road trip opportunity that draws you and thousands of others to ND - it's "quality hunting" for all the many meanings that phrase has to many people. And to the average ND hunter, "quality hunting" has taking a serious kick in the shorts the last several years.


----------



## james s melson

I think I know what you are saying, Dan, I don't want to get into definitions of words. People do hunt their home states most of the time, they take road trips to see what other areas have to offer. You are right, quality of the hunt on those trips is important, thats why there is so much action on sites like NoDak. People who don't get out and see it for themselves should be alittle more restrained in their opinion to be taken seriously.


----------



## Bob Kellam

Goldy The hunting pressure was probably the worst I have seen this year in the Oaks, Rutland area, as far as grumbling I did not mean to target you, but there has been a lot of NR grumbling about the cost.


----------



## jd mn/nd

Brad Anderson the limit on snow geese in 1998 was only ten per day now it is 20 per day in 1998 there were a couple of times our group limited out. how about since the limit went to 20 per day I do not know nor have I heard of any one limiting out! And yet there are more birds now then back in 1998. Also in 1998 the canadian resevour had not yet been filled with water, so the birds did filter into the state on a more even basis, hence providing a long period of time to hunt them. :strapped:


----------



## stevo1

You know its too bad about the whole mess. It seems to me that all it does is ruin relationships and put the sportsman at odds. Its too bad there has to be boarders at all. Think about it, if not for that squiggly line- no problems.  I wish everyone could work together and solve the problem. I wish no one from any state got nailed with the high price of NR liscences. I wish my young children would never be denied a chance to hunt because of what hard feelings are being made. I wish MN had all the hunting oppertunities of ND. I wish I owned 10,000 acres in MN to let all in. I can wish all I want but it will take an effort of many to make any it happen. I am not ashamed to be from MN. I think most are somewhat jealous of ND opportunities. I am! I went up along the boarder and tried to gain access to some land to shoot P-dogs. We talked to a few ranchers and couldnt obtain permission do to cattle grazing, or we couldnt find the owner. In any case we were turned down in a very polite and dignified mannor. We fully understood. So we wound up going fishing for 3 days and had a wonderful time. Part of the fun is traveling to your destination. ND residents you have a right to be proud. I just ask that all sportsman work together to solve this issue. I work with criminal youth and most of the bickering I see is juvinile. I hope someday to see some of you in the field - enjoying yourself, not wasting time arguing. I hope everyone has a great hunting/fishing season. :beer: Steve


----------



## Guest

Yeah. You guys from NoDak, I wanna hunt with you for Christ's sake. And I want you to hunt w/ us in MN sometime. How about we all stop the border battle **** and just HUNT?????? :beer:

P.S. Half the fun, in MHO, is the roadtrip and getting totally :drunk: :bartime:


----------



## wiscan22

Not to rub dirt in anyones face but the thing that really set off the fire here, at least by what I can read in this forum is the fact that MN did infact file a federal suit against ND. I know it was the governor and that by the posts on this forum most Mn's are against the suit, but try putting yourself in ND's shoes. What if Wisconsin filed suit over the perch limits currently in effect for NR's in MN? Mn's would be simply wild at us and I couldn't blame them, just like I can't blame ND for being upset about the lawsuit.

I have went on record here as saying that I too am against the restrictions that ND has in place for NR's and I still feel that way. It's an all together different ballgame when a lawsuit is filed and unfortunately everyone is going to feel the affect of this and borders will not make a difference.

Hopefully, this whole thing can be solved in a diplomatic way... and hopefully the politics that got involved in this whole thing will find a backdoor exit prior to that happening. If it does go to court, win or lose, the fact that things went that far will taint the hearts of ND R's for many years to come.... at least towards NR's


----------



## H2OfowlND

Read the Bismarck Tribune this saturday and saw there are two more MN residents joining the lawsuit. They are both former ND residents and are PO'd that they can't hunt here the whole season on with family and friends on land they own or their family owns.

Any Bismarck guys still got saturdays paper?? Or is it on their website??

H2OfowlND


----------



## BandHunter

Hey Goldy the hunting pressure was huge around Jamestown, Carrington, New Rock Ford all the way north to Devils Lake, East Glenville all the way to Cavalier, and west all the way to steele/drake area. That is about a 300 mile area where you couldnt drive with out seeing another hunter everyday....And not just one hunter many hunters... Ask anyone around Jamestown or around these areas if there was hunting pressure this year and see what they tell you...

Does anyone else see any out of staters being inconsiderate at all while they are huting in ND? i have seen it many times. :******: dumping garbage when they get out of trucks, shooting out there windows of there trucks, setting up 80 down wind of our decoys 20 minutes before gets light out and were already set up, pulling down posted signs......But i guess sense out of staters pay more for liscense then we do they have the right to do this...And because they pay more they should get more opertunities then instaters..

I think that North Dakotas people should get the opertunites to hunt and fish and if there is a little left then out of staters can come in and hunt, but instaters should not have sacriffice any of their time, energy, and money so that out of staters are happy. The entire point of the early season is the let instaters have a week to hunt with out all of the garbage and problems..Is that to much to ask for? I dont think it is. If Minnesota would have just let this go and given this first week to instaters i would say that most of us wouldnt be complaining to much about everything because that week is ours... I dont know what is that big deal anyways none of the birds from canada are down then anyways it is all locals that have grown up on the Local ponds, rivers, marshes of ND, not metion the farms in nd that sported them all spring. Most people want to hunt the migration back south with the snows and blues and small canadians anyways... Well that is it for me for now..
Bandhunter


----------



## Brad Anderson

So I'm not the only one.

The water is going to become a huge issue this year if we don't get some precip.


----------



## BandHunter

I am here with ya. I know is it kind of redundant, but that those of few ruined it for everyone..You made your bed now your going to have to deal with it..I know some farmers that are going to post there lands specfifically to out of staters..So dont be suprise to see now trespassing to out of staters...Maybe then when you see that you will see that one week wasnt worth all of the hastle. That is it for now...
Bandhunter


----------



## Goldy's Pal

Bandhunter, As far as the first week of the season goes, you can have it. I don't mind that. Our local hatch of birds is good here for that period of time that I can't come out there anyway. As far as the area you described as being over run with pressure, whatever. :lol: Between you and a couple of others now you may as well just throw that famous flyway map of yours on here because that's the area of the state we're up to already. :eyeroll: You can bad mouth NRs bandhunter till you're blue in the face and it won't change the fact that resident hunters do it to and it's just another one of them examples of a few bad apples that have made you obviously bitter towards NRs period. If it were up to you Bandhunter, you would send me an old crippled mallard in a cage and tell me to turn it loose and make that my North Dakota hunt. You're rediculous man. Your attitude towards NRs is the worst I think I've seen yet, so get your ball rolling again if you want, I've already been down your narrow minded path of wisdom but maybe since you are so much more educated than most, fill us in. Us NRs want to learn. 

By the way Land owners I've been in touch with out there lately don't give a rats a$$ about any lawsuit and still welcome us anytime, so don't get too excited about your wish just yet. :wink:


----------



## BandHunter

Hey Goldy would you mind if i would come over to your place and hunt some deer this fall? Or do you know anyone in Minnesota that would let me hunt on there land? The fact is that in Minnesota if you dont own land or are extremely lucky to have access to private land you hunt public land which is a joke, pay hunt which is a joke, go some where else and complain about what they are doing in there state which is a joke, or you dont hunt at all.. I say sense in Minnesota i cant go deer hunting there on some one else land and i have to hunt public land then we limit out of staters to the same thing..That is what this going to come too.. North Dakota is going to be Minnesota...

And goldy i am no against out of staters but I want the state to think about instaters before they think about out of staters.. For everyone to here Goldy is a goo guy and i am not talking about him he has proved him self, but that still leaves all the other out of staters to deal with...Goldy you and your old man can have your two weeks.... I think they just need to cut down on out of staters and make it a lottery to get a liscense.... The number can still be fair make it 15000..... And if that doesnt work make them only be able to hunt with guides, but regulate the number of guides in the state.....They can watch out of staters to make sure they are behaving well... That is all for now....Thanks for your time
Bandhunter
P.S. Goldy said that i hate out of staters or something of that nature all i can say is that isnt true completely some are good...i would say that the majority i have met in the field or in town are jerks though...


----------



## wiscan22

BandHunter said:


> Hey Goldy would you mind if i would come over to your place and hunt some deer this fall? Or do you know anyone in Minnesota that would let me hunt on there land? The fact is that in Minnesota if you dont own land or are extremely lucky to have access to private land you hunt public land which is a joke, pay hunt which is a joke, go some where else and complain about what they are doing in there state which is a joke, or you dont hunt at all.. I say sense in Minnesota i cant go deer hunting there on some one else land and i have to hunt public land then we limit out of staters to the same thing..That is what this going to come too.. North Dakota is going to be Minnesota...
> 
> And goldy i am no against out of staters but I want the state to think about instaters before they think about out of staters.. For everyone to here Goldy is a goo guy and i am not talking about him he has proved him self, but that still leaves all the other out of staters to deal with...Goldy you and your old man can have your two weeks.... I think they just need to cut down on out of staters and make it a lottery to get a liscense.... The number can still be fair make it 15000..... And if that doesnt work make them only be able to hunt with guides, but regulate the number of guides in the state.....They can watch out of staters to make sure they are behaving well... That is all for now....Thanks for your time
> Bandhunter
> P.S. Goldy said that i hate out of staters or something of that nature all i can say is that isnt true completely some are good...i would say that the majority i have met in the field or in town are jerks though...


Ah Bandhunter.... lets look at the waterfowl basics here:

Resident: Can hunt the entire state... no boundaries.
Has the first week to themselves.
License cost $20- waterfowl and small game
Can hunt the entire season

Non-resident: Can hunt 2-7 or a 14 day period.
Can't hunt opening week
Can't hunt PLOTS land the first week of pheasant season
(Just want to hunt ducks... not pheasants)
Is subject to zones.
License cost $200 - small game and waterfowl.

IF you've read the posts I've been hunting ND for 26 years and have seen hardly any of the scenarios you've described. I have however seen fee hunting expand very rapidly with many ND guides leasing large tracts of land and charging $100 per gun per day to hunt. I have also seen corporate leasing "come of age" in the area I hunt. How you described MN is exactly the direction that ND is heading.... making it a rich mans sport, all others not welcome. When your guide system/corporate lease program takes a firm hold on the state as it is, the excuse of NR's causing all of ND's problems will be proven wrong. As far as your branding "out of staters as behavior deficiant and needing a guide to monitor their behavior.... don't make me laugh. If it were as bad as you describe, I'm sure PETA would be having a field day with ND as this is exactly the way they portray the hunting community. With all due respects Bandhunter I suggest you go back to the basics and review what the purpose of hunting and the outdoors is all about.


----------



## Goldy's Pal

Well Bandhunter, I appreciate the fact that "me and my old man can have our two weeks out there" but I doubt North Dakota is going to set up separate restrictions for 2 people. :lol: I only need 7 days anyway.
You say your not against out of staters, just the majority of out of staters or whatever it is, but every time you post it's the same old sh*t. Nrs polluting your state like we always do. "Cut us back to 15,000 and if that doesn't work make us only be able to hunt with guides so they can watch over us and make sure we behave well???" :lol: :rollin:. Oh yeah but regulate the number of guides. You have to be kidding Bandhunter, take away freelance hunting for NRs in North Dakota??? That should draw a roar from the crowd.

If you can't find land to hunt deer on in Minn., that's your problem. Do your homework and scout like hell just as we do out in ND. Good hunting land is out there to find, you're just looking in the wrong places. Maybe I should put the Minnesota state map on here so you can pin point the hot areas. I wouldn't mind helping you out some but just what have you done for me lately?? Besides if ND has everything like SOME residents claim you do, why would you even need to come here to deer hunt to start with?? Oh and can someone watch over you if you do come?? We like our woods here in Minn. left better than the way we found it.


----------



## snowflake

GP AMEN TO THAT!!!!!!! :beer: :beer: I'd be glad to take anyone deer hunting around here!!Last year our party got 12 deer for 14 tags,and your's truly shot 7 of those!N.D. deer hunting sucks,my uncle comes here every year ,and yes he's free to hunt every day he wants,no restrictions,has a good time,and nobody gives a **** where he's from!!!


----------



## Brad Anderson

Yep, ND deer hunting sucks. I guess you have to like sitting in tree stands to hunt in MN.

And if ya couldn't tell, I think bandhunter was being sarcastic about deer hunting in MN.


----------



## james s melson

"deer hunting" in ND is called "road hunting" in MN.


----------



## BandHunter

I was being sarcastic. I was only making suggestions with the guides.. And i do still think we need to limit the amount of liscense... So it doesnt get like Minnesota.. Snow flake Just what i want to hunt with a big hunting Party and have someone shoot my deer for me.... It would make it a lot better nd we would be able to preserve everything by limiting the amount of liscense...The amount we are giving out now is rediculous.. I lived in Minnesota for 18 years and you are the first people in minnesota that would let someone hunt deer on their land....There are few people that would.... At least in centeral minnesota that is..... Goldy stop talking **** i never was trying to insult you...But i suppose when you have nothing really to say that will happen i have my own opinions and i can voise them and i dont think the personnel attacks are needed..Get a clue....
Bandhunter....


----------



## Goldy's Pal

BandHunter said:


> I am here with ya. I know is it kind of redundant, but that those of few ruined it for everyone..You made your bed now your going to have to deal with it..I know some farmers that are going to post there lands specfifically to out of staters..So dont be suprise to see now trespassing to out of staters...Maybe then when you see that you will see that one week wasnt worth all of the hastle. That is it for now...
> Bandhunter


As a Minnesota resident I have the right to take something like this personally don't I???? I wouldn't exactly call that shooting the breeze in the open forum would you?? Stop your NR attack mentality and I'll shut up faster than you can open a can of pop. A lot of residents here make points that can be tossed around. Why can't yours?? get a clue yourself.


----------



## indsport

Okay, here is the data to make a determination on fees. Does not include many special licenses or stamps or tags or add on fees.

state	small game	non res waterfowl	nonres any deer mn	95.5 (includes waterfowl) 136	
sd	100 105-115 155	
nd	85 85 220

res sportsman (hunt and fish) res deer	
mn	39.5 $8 - 79	
sd	44 20	
nd	32 20

ND raised rates on NR deer licenses just recently, mostly due to mule deer hunting in the west. MN deer license prices all over the place depending on management objective. SD still most expensive to hunt waterfowl for non res. non resident fishing licenses almost same in every state so comparison there is pretty useless.


----------



## Goldy's Pal

Thanks for the numbers indsport. I wouldn't care if Non-Res. deer was the same as the residents fee. It should be. Come out and shoot em'!! There are too many deer around here anyway. I would let almost anyone hunt my piece and show almost anyone where to go. I can share the wealth, no problem.

:beer:


----------



## snowflake

Right-on G.P.!!! Usually all you have to do is ask,but we know the freelancers usually don't want to stoop that low.And yes I like tree stands,but prefer still hunting that takes some skill,not riding around in a piuckup w/the heater on and shooting them out the window!!!My uncle likes tree stands also,but he's 81 and only uses a ground blind now.


----------



## KEN W

Where does this impression of Nodakers shooting deer out the pickup window come from???? :eyeroll:


----------



## Field Hunter

Consider the Source!


----------



## jd mn/nd

Ken W I personally have seen the residents of ND drive their 4X4 pickup across the field at speeds of over 50mph chasing deer while the passenger was hanging out the window with the rifle shooting at the deer!! And that was up in your neck of the woods within 20 miles of your city. I have spent a lot of time in that area over the last 20 plus years and have seen many similar events weather it was fox, partrige, grouse, pheasant, you name it I have seen shot out of a truck or a car window and they all had ND plates on them!!


----------



## Field Hunter

I'm glad you saw it. Do the same thing that I did when hunting my brother-in-laws land in MN a number of years ago. Get the license plate number and call the turn-in-poachers hot-line, immediately! ND has a bunch of idiots...so does MN....I've seen them in both states. They however aren't as big a problem as you claim.


----------



## jd mn/nd

Field hunter how long have you lived there ever try to follow another vehicle really close like close enough to read lisc. plates on a gravel road at 55 or 60 mph! Be real when they see you headed in their direction they take off and out there in some places you can see for several miles in any direction. The best we could ever do was tell that they had ND plates through the binoculars. Between the dust and dirt your lucky to tell if the plates are even current.


----------



## snowflake

I saw it with my own two eyes s. of Medina last year.Not only did this moron shoot a deer out of his window,but did it on private propertyw/dairy cows close by in the same field. From what I found out,this wasn't the first time this happened as there were alot of deer in the area where this happened.The authorities were called,but the "hunter"was long gone by the time they got there.


----------



## stevepike

Well if you could tell they had ND plates (and you say this has happened so many times, with all species) then you should be able to at least get a look at the occupants (at least one), a great description of the vehicle with identifying characteristics, partial plate number (any digits), direction of travel, what they were doing, etc. This would be enough to get the warden pointed in the right direction.

But since you say this happens so often and you have personally witnessed it, I think you are either respouting rural legends/second or thirdhand information, or if it honestly did happen and you witnessed it, you did not have the testicular fortitude to report it. It is pretty sad when people spout off about stuff like this on the internet and then come up with excuses why they did not turn them in.


----------



## stevo1

Everyone has an opinioin. Unfortunatly I dont think there is a perfect solution. As far as hunting pressure it seems to be happening all over. I know where I live in MN, farmers are starting to have problems with people from town doing as they please. Its not just a state against state problem. Remember guys its not just for us, we have children to teach sportsmanship skills to. My 13 year old read some of these posts and siad why dont people work together instead of comparing sandboxes. Good point eh. MN people just need to remember that people will protect thier home and keep strangers out, by being patient, trust and understanding can be built and some doors will open.


----------



## Field Hunter

I think your 13 year old has it down. If the sandbox in the neighbors yard has more than yours does....don't try to take some from your neighbors....try to enhance the sand your own first.


----------



## wiscan22

Not to add insult to injury but I also witnessed the same kind of deer hunting in the northern part of ND.... driving down the wind rows and shooting at deer as they came out. The answer I got when I inquired about it is "Hell this is common practice up here. It's the only way you can get "em." It's a little different than here in the dangerous state of Wisconsin. Over here if you have an uncased (and even worse) loaded gun in your car you get invited to a court hearing. If you shoot a deer under that scenario, the deer is confiscated and it costs you an additional $2,000 + court costs. There have been a few ND R's that have falsely accussed the NR's of being unethical. Along with the "sandbox" methodoligy I think the old saying..." don't complain about your neighbors closet until you clean yours out first" applies.


----------



## Bob Kellam

GP Snowflake and the ND guys. why are you guys so angry,bitter,upset I don't know which one applies the best, or maybe all of the above. we all like to hunt, fish and enjoy the outdoors right? all of these cheap shots that are flying back and forth are not doing the sport we all care deeply about any good it is just driving the wedge deeper. people do not like change, but it is a necessary thing in life. we can all still hunt and fish as residents and non residents in Mn, ND, SD, Wi and where ever else we choose now! RIGHT? and there are a few restrictions that we do not like, maybe a few individuals that we don't care for but we can still hunt. I am going to predict that the Mn lawsuit will go nowhere (just a gut feeling) and the reason i say this is if you would all step back take a deep breath and re-focus all of this negative energy into a combined R and NR effort to stop the G/O's well funded lobby. (which in my opinion is behind all of this) if we can not stop them or slow them down we will all be going on canned hunts as there will be no prime land left that they do not control, I may be all wet but i am old enough to not have to deal with excessive testosterone and young enough to still enjoy the outdoors in what i consider the prime of my hunting life. and damn, i want to hunt and fish till i drop!!!!!! I have witnessed a lot of change, an example was when i first started to hunt, (40 years ago) prarie chickens were all over my home area, they were fun to hunt it was like shooting soccer balls! now you rarely see any. the county that i grew up in has the most area in CRP of any in the state, that was a change that was a good and bad change because my parents were able to leave the farm and retire with a little extra income, but the land lost one of the greatest stewards it had ever seen. the home farm is still in family hands and we have been approched by G/O's and believe me it was not a pleasant conversation for them. So here we are NR have to wait out the first week and pick an area to hunt waterfowl, well my answer to this is when i hunt in or out of state i do my homework and i am successful most of the time, i am not rich by any means but i set aside the funds for my priorities in life and i am happy to pay to be able to experience a new and different outdoor adventure. I do know that the NR border hunters are the ones that this is affecting the most, i have friends that would hunt every night after work, they hate it but we have adjusted and we still hunt and that to me is the bottom line, how many bag limits does a person need to be happy, i hope the answer is one.

I am sorry to those of you that think i am preaching to the choir, i grew up with a man that helped me understand how to appreciate and respect the land and it's bounty and i will go to my grave with a much greater respect than i was born with, to me it is just that simple!!!!!! Thanks for your time guys!


----------



## Goldy's Pal

Thanks for your point of view Open Field. You are totally right. Just getting out and having a good time, whether you're alone or with a huntin' buddy it's what it's all about.

:beer:


----------



## wiscan22

Open Field said:


> GP Snowflake and the ND guys. why are you guys so angry,bitter,upset I don't know which one applies the best, or maybe all of the above. we all like to hunt, fish and enjoy the outdoors right? all of these cheap shots that are flying back and forth are not doing the sport we all care deeply about any good it is just driving the wedge deeper. people do not like change, but it is a necessary thing in life. we can all still hunt and fish as residents and non residents in Mn, ND, SD, Wi and where ever else we choose now! RIGHT? and there are a few restrictions that we do not like, maybe a few individuals that we don't care for but we can still hunt. I am going to predict that the Mn lawsuit will go nowhere (just a gut feeling) and the reason i say this is if you would all step back take a deep breath and re-focus all of this negative energy into a combined R and NR effort to stop the G/O's well funded lobby. (which in my opinion is behind all of this) if we can not stop them or slow them down we will all be going on canned hunts as there will be no prime land left that they do not control, I may be all wet but i am old enough to not have to deal with excessive testosterone and young enough to still enjoy the outdoors in what i consider the prime of my hunting life. and damn, i want to hunt and fish till i drop!!!!!! I have witnessed a lot of change, an example was when i first started to hunt, (40 years ago) prarie chickens were all over my home area, they were fun to hunt it was like shooting soccer balls! now you rarely see any. the county that i grew up in has the most area in CRP of any in the state, that was a change that was a good and bad change because my parents were able to leave the farm and retire with a little extra income, but the land lost one of the greatest stewards it had ever seen. the home farm is still in family hands and we have been approched by G/O's and believe me it was not a pleasant conversation for them. So here we are NR have to wait out the first week and pick an area to hunt waterfowl, well my answer to this is when i hunt in or out of state i do my homework and i am successful most of the time, i am not rich by any means but i set aside the funds for my priorities in life and i am happy to pay to be able to experience a new and different outdoor adventure. I do know that the NR border hunters are the ones that this is affecting the most, i have friends that would hunt every night after work, they hate it but we have adjusted and we still hunt and that to me is the bottom line, how many bag limits does a person need to be happy, i hope the answer is one.
> 
> I am sorry to those of you that think i am preaching to the choir, i grew up with a man that helped me understand how to appreciate and respect the land and it's bounty and i will go to my grave with a much greater respect than i was born with, to me it is just that simple!!!!!! Thanks for your time guys!


*Good Post! Well Said!*


----------



## Bob Kellam

GP, Wiscan22
Thanks for your posts. We all (Residents and Non Residents) need to get a discussion going on what is the best plan of attack. This web site has a wealth of information under the "what can I do" heading. we should all get involved. it looks like from some of the recent posts we have a Dem. running for Gov that has some views that I agree with, however can a Gov. do anything on his own without legislative support? not going to happen! do we need to start a letter to the editor blitz, not just in ND but also in border states? I have only had one letter published that i wrote when i was mad as he!! so lets try to look at the positive side of the issues. There will probably be some disagreement by some in this forum, and i think it is healthy to agree to diagree. what are the issues out there that need attention and action? I think G/O's are a big one! what are some others.


----------



## KEN W

I think the governor can make any decision he wants in the proclamation as long as it doesn't go against the laws already in force.


----------



## Bob Kellam

I did not know that, Thank you!


----------



## Perry Thorvig

Good post Open Field. I too am really disheartened by the constant bickering that goes on here!! Let us turn our energies, anger, and written words toward controlling, even eliminating, the damned guides and outfitters. They are the ones that are screwing things up for everybody.


----------



## Bob Kellam

Thanks Perry I have said in previous posts that i joined this forum to have more than a voice of one. I am confident that we can get results, there is a very large group individuals on this site who care alot about the outdoors
Tony Dean is an army of one, fishing buddy is a great site but here the heated debates are unlike any other site i have been to and the heated debate is the result of a passion for the outdoors. in my opinion if we can get past the what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine attitude, agree to diagree on some issues, and get rid of or control the G/O's land grab tactics we will be a lot further ahead and ready for the next challenge. :beer:


----------



## snowflake

God bless 'ya OF,I think somebody finally hit the nail on the head w/out bending the damn thing :beer: I know I've ticked a few people off lately,but what the hell,y'all,its the freedom of speach thing,2nd amend.,all that stuff rolled together that makes us what we are.there are a couple people out there who know where I'm really coming from,and I'm not the enemy!! :eyeroll:


----------



## Bob Kellam

Snowflake
a fellow hunter/sportsman who gives a damn can never be the enemy! I mean that!

it is the people who are uninformed and under educated on the issues that need to get their stuff together and quit complaining until they do. I have been doing a lot of reading on this site and if you go back and look at the history of some of these issues well let me just say it has been an education for me.

Take care
:lol:


----------



## snowflake

"DITTO"


----------



## james s melson

Hi Fetch, I know you are watching.


----------



## jd mn/nd

Two days ago Open Field made a suggestion that we all ban together and work united in stead of individually, sounds like a good idea. I can lay down my personal opions for the greater good. However since O.F. made that suggestion this site has been dead!! Why? IF we are all so intellegant, why can't we figure out a way to work together to resolve the larger issues. We all had sharp minds and tongues when it came to taking each down at the knees. Now lets do it to our politicians, who likes those guys any way all they ever try to do is take aways the rights of the sportsman. Hence the reason for the NRA, and other similar organizations, fighting for our rights to hunt and fish across this nation. They couldn't divide us a national level, so now they are trying it at a state level. This all has come to a divide and concure mentality. Don't let our politician win this battle, we have all stated that we have either family or friends or both that live in either of the two states. They were there before this started and they will be there after this over. Lets work togther to resolve this issue, if any one has any idea of where to start let me know I will get involved. :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:


----------



## Perry Thorvig

It's not the politicians. Don't piss them off. You are going to need them - both republicans and democrats - to put together a bi-partisan effort to deal with the problem.

Here is what you can do.

1. Get to know your state representatives. It's a lot easier to influence somebody you know rather somebody you don't know. A political solution will result from this problem. You must be politically involved.

2. Volunteer to be a speaker at your local business group to explain to them that a state overrun by guides and outfitters is not good for the local economy. Explain to them what has happened around Mott and how the business folks are now whining that there are no hunters in the town cafe or motel. I'll bet there are some folks here at nodakoutdoors.com that would give you a packet of facts and talking points.

3. If you are a nonresident, accept some reasonable limits on the number of nonresident hunters allowed in the state. If you feel, you really are getting screwed by North Dakota and you want to fight, go fight the people in South Dakota. They only allow 4,000 NR waterfowl licenses compared to almost 29,000 who hunted in North Dakota last year. They are the ones that should be the focus of your anger, not the guys on this board from North Dakota.

4. If you are from North Dakota, compromise on the Plots/public lands ban during the middle of the duck season. I don't know that this made hunting appreciably better for residents, but it really went over the top with the NRs. This more than anything made a lot of them really angry.

That's a start on what we can all - R and NR - do to start working together. We don't need to be lobbing grenades at each other.


----------



## Bob Kellam

Educating ourselves on the issues and being able to respond is going to be a good tool for us. I hate to do this but here is a website for a large ND outfitter www.campcannonball.com check out the site. this is what we are up against BIG MONEY! check the 5 day hunt. I am preaching again but we really need to control this "land grab" and educating ourselves on issues like Perry mentioned is really good ammo. and i think we all know what happens when we run out of ammo!

It rubs me the wrong way to give these guys any mention at all and I checked it out with Perry prior to this posting.

NR's do not feel helpless let people know how you feel about huntable "Prime" acerage being eaten up by big money outfits like this

Think before you shoot, don't shoot from the hip on this.


----------



## jd mn/nd

Hey OF if anybody actuallty pays for that kind ofservice they are crazy!! you cango on a fully guided and full american plan for the same kind of money they are asking for and you would have better accomodations than what they are offering. However they do not provide waterfowl services and this debate is primarily about the waterfowl hunting, not about the upland and big game. Look around the Kramer area and all of the leased land there that is sucked up by the outfitters you have to go further west and north by at least 20 miles to get away from the commercially posted land in order to free lance hunt. In the Kramer area there were three large outfitters the one owns the old school and puts up hunters another has old leaky mobile homes that he puts up hunters in and the other just guides however they take up about three miles on either side of clark slayer out from the refuge and that extends ten miles or more north and south of Kramer. That is what is hurting the hunting, when you have guides leasing up land in that fashion and they can not possibly be on all of it at the same time. It hurts all hunters regardless of resident or non-resident. However all this talking about it does not solve the problem. How can all free lance hunters band together and stop this from happening?


----------



## buckseye

Hey jd...you are so right on how much guiding has taken away from the outdoorsman. I have lived in the Kramer area long enuff to see the difference in amount of hunters that show up here. I remember not long ago, probaly 10 years, we used to laugh at all the firing line hunters. We counted 107 in one mile of firing line. We now have zero because the adjoining land is posted by guides and habitat changes.

I wish 100's of hunters would come to the Upham/Kramer area so the business's that are left could see what they are missing.


----------



## Perry Thorvig

Do you guys think we could put together a map of the major guiding areas and show visually what primary areas are being leased up by outfitters? I think that would have an impact on legislators and staff.

Here is the start of a list of areas.

Areas of Lost Access by Local Hunters because of guides:

1. A 20 mile radius circle around Kramer. - Geese
2. A 25 mile radius around Devils Lake. - Ducks
3. A 25 mile radius around Streeter. - Ducks
4. A 30 mile radius around Mott. - Pheasants
5. Five miles out from the Missouri River between Bismarck and Washburn - Canada geese.
6. An area north of Jamestown - waterfowl.

Okay guys. Where are the other areas where access opportunities are disappearing? Let's get them on a map. You give us the areas and I will color them in on a map. Are the mile dimensions above correct?


----------



## Bob Kellam

Perry here is a list of some areas

Robinson ND 3000 acres
cannonball 10,000 acres (cannonball river)
Elgin ND 2000 acres
Killdeer ND 3000 acres
Medina ND 15000 acres
75 miles ne of Bismarck 1600 acres
Bismarck ND 2400 acres
Dickinson ND 7000 acres
New England ND 16000+ acres
Richardton ND 8000 acres
Braddock ND 3000 acres
Linton ND lemmon SD 32000 acres
Logging camp ranch 12000 acres private and us forest service land
Carson ND 2000 acres
Ray ND They would not say how much land
Fullerton ND 
Regent ND 4000 acres
Linton ND lemmon SD 2500 acres
Reeder ND 4000 acres
Plaza ND 5000+ acres
Cleveland ND Did not answer
Wishek ND did not answer

And this is from just ONE website!


----------



## jd mn/nd

Perry also put a 40-50 mile circle around the Minot area mostly to the north. This area is also well populated with hunting from the military and many others it is well posted. However I think that the DNR should put a moritorium on the land around refuges that it can not be leased or posted for hunting of waterfowl helping to make the good land more available to free lance hunting. This should be at least a minimum of 3 miles out from any refuge.


----------



## Perry Thorvig

Thank you, gentlemen. Keep em coming, guys. Let's get that list and see what the map looks like.


----------



## KEN W

jd...you can forget that...there is no way you can order a landowner not to post his land.

Plus there is not 50 miles around Minot that is leased.Posted maybe...but not leased.


----------



## Perry Thorvig

So, what do you think, Ken. Is this approach going to help define the nature of the problem?


----------



## KEN W

It would have to be for a general area around the town since we wouldn't know exactly where the acreage is...maybe the GNF knows exactly????

Here are some more...

Stanley....10,000

Goodrich....50,000

Powers Lake....6,000

New England...10,000

Golden Valley....4,000


----------



## Perry Thorvig

In some areas, almost everything is posted and controlled by the outfitters. In other areas, it is just posted.

Maybe we could do a bar graph at each location showing the number of acres. Probably a better display would be circles of a size corresponding to the number of acres.


----------



## Bob Kellam

Perry the hard part about determining the extent of the problem is: at home as i have said in previous posts the guides take the early clients to land that is public and have their groups hunt until there is nothing left then they go to their leased or private land. I come from a small town and everyone knows way to much about everyone and everything that is going on, when a person gets a new truck it is news! I have witnessed this happening, I know the people involved, I have talked with them and they say that it is not against the law to do what they do, (i will have to say i do not know if it is legal or not) it has promoted some hard feelings between former friends. just my two cents worth.


----------



## Goldy's Pal

Open Field said:


> Perry the hard part about determining the extent of the problem is: at home as i have said in previous posts the guides take the early clients to land that is public and have their groups hunt until there is nothing left then they go to their leased or private land.


  Thanks Open Field, I had no idea this was happening out there. :huh: I seriously wonder how many others don't know this goes on in ND.????????????????????????????


----------



## Brad Anderson

Yep, land access is retarded. Go to the SW corner of the state sometime, count posted signs.


----------



## Dick Monson

Perry, Ken, very interesting idea of mapping the outfitters domain. In the Feb meeting of sportsmen groups we decided to put together an info packet for the legislators and other candidates too. Would very much like to include your maps and or graphs of outfitter domain. To draw attention from subscribers, you may need to start a fresh topic? Up to you.

I'd like to visit pm with one of you fellows that is good on power point.


----------



## Bob Kellam

Perry I found one more on the web
Washburn ND 7000 acres 
there is another outfitter north of Tappen ND around Kunkle Lake I can not think of the name of it. I know they control alot of land around there. there is also one in Napoleon ND, I can't think of that one either. Isn't there a Gov. site that lists all of this. if the requirements to be a guide or outfitter include filling out an application there should be a record of it. Just a thought


----------



## Bob Kellam

did a search of the North Dakota Secretary of State web site typed in outfitters in the search box and it lists all of the people that lobby the legislature, there are some outfitters listed One was from Woodlands Resort and it listed thr North Dakota Association of Professional Guides and Outfitters, I can not find a web site for these guys, also looked into the ND tax structure guiding and outfitting is not taxable only lodging, meals, gifts ammunition and clothing sales are taxable. man am I in the wrong business!!!! :eyeroll: Just kidding!


----------

