# HB 1358



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

just read this over on the game and fish site, it would limit small game licenses to one 10 day period or 2 5 day periods for nonresidents, but then it says they can buy more than one license??? does that mean they can buy 2 licenses and hunt 2 10 day periods and 4 5 day periods?? i don't see how that could be right, because that defeats the purpose of the bill


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

That's what it says.Someone from out of state with lots of money would have it just like now.Buy ND land and hunt the whole season.


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

we definitely need to email for support of this bill except reccomend amending it so they can only buy one license...


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

At least the guys that "move" to ND in the Fall for the purpose of upland hunting would have to anti up an additional $100.00 or so every 2 weeks.
Like the guys around SW ND that visit for 8-10 weeks every Fall and "help" their friends find good hunting spots. No outfitters license, only donations to the local economy in exchange for tying up all the land for their friends. The majority of NR upland hunters, at least the ones that use outfitters are hear for an average of 5 days and wouldn't see much of a change. I think the average freelance guy from the border cities would be effected more and probably wouldn't purchase more than one license a year. I'd bet you just wouldn't see the NRs after the 1st 4 weeks or so of the season. Even though I make moerate income, I would really have to think about buying another license for myself and both of my sons.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Just to repeat what tsodak said before - alot of Legislators I don't think even read their emails. Or take them serious. I well written letter, or call are more effective - But I still send emails or print the email & mail it too.

& we need to keep this up & ask all to support us - this needs to be a over-whelming year of support from real Hunters. & people who want to see the truth & real help for rural towns - Before it's too late.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Children under 16 can hunt for resident rates if the NR's home state has reciprocity (ie MN). There is a bill in the ND legislature to eliminate the reciprocity requirement and let all youngsters hunt at the lower cost.

PH


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

You're right on, rap. Everyone, contact the HNRC telling them you support the additional income 1223 will bring to the SW in certain years but that we need some relief from certain relatively few but high-impact border hunters who compete with us over, and over and over on the shrinking amount of available ground. Only way to do this is to amend 1358 for a one license feature. Good compromise would be one license, with 3 5's, where one can be used b/4 the pheas opener or after 12/01, that way landowners with nonresident children would still have a very meaningful and flexible opportunity to hunt back at home.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

HB 1358 - (Introduced by Rep's Porter, Carlson, Hanson, Nelson; Sen's Fischer, Tollefson) - Would amend the North Dakota Century Code relating to nonresident hunting and fishing licenses and fees. The nonresident small game license would entitle a nonresident to hunt small game for any period of 10 consecutive days or any two periods of five consecutive days each. A nonresident would be allowed to purchase more than one nonresident small game license per year. A nonresident small game license would not be required to hunt waterfowl. A nonresident small game license would cost $100 and a nonresident waterfowl license would cost $100. Nonresident fishing licenses would increase to $32 for a season license, $20 for a seven day license, $15 for a three day license, and $45 for a husband and wife. *HNRC amended to make the small game license fee $85 and the waterfowl license fee $85. Reported back do-pass.*


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

This change is already on the legis. web site.They also upped the amount for PLOTS land from $3,000,000 to $3,300,000.


----------



## Dano2 (Oct 8, 2002)

So, Is the fee $85 then?

Dan B. I like your idea about the 3-5's.

Quite frankly I cant believe this one passed as I didn't think there was that big of an issue with the upland, just the waterfowl I thought was the main concern along with land access ofcourse and your guides and outfitters.

But, I dont see this decision helping with THAT issue much anyway,
alls it does is kick the NR freelance hunter in the nuts ,
these other NR's with the big $$ that use the guides,outfitters, probably only come to ND for about that time frame anyway


----------



## Miller (Mar 2, 2002)

You're exactly right Dano.North Dakota is becoming a playground for the rich only.The point you made about the rich guys being able to afford it and the average guy not being able to is the most interesting point.You see, the tourism industry is "on the same side" with the outfitting industry, and the tourism industry doesn't even realize when they're getting screwed. At least thats assuming that they rely on the freelance hunters.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Splitting the licenses is a good idea. Will enable ND G&F to get a better picture of who is hunting what.

The $85 each for waterfowl and upland will be a burden to many NRs. A few will no longer hunt both - but most will still come if the quality is there.

Guess you can not blame ND they are just jumping on the bandwagon.

MT big game, SD birds, Iowa turkey and deer - everyone wants a bigger share and this eventually forces some out. NR fishing keeps going up too.

Canada prairie provinces may eventually also follow with an increase license fees - when they see what is going on in USA.

So as everyone ramps of the license fees, some hunters will have to be more selective in what they chose to pursue (can not do everything they want every year) others will simply open their wallet.

*A good point that is still out there is NR youth can hunt in ND for resident rates if their home state offers the same deal. Dads are not burdened with heavy fees for their kids too. *


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

1358 passed the house - 84 to 8.

yahoo.


----------



## Dano2 (Oct 8, 2002)

Ya, Yahoo,
More will probably be useing guides and outfitters now
to make sure they get in some good hunting with the
more limited time.
Atleast I know I will be


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

D2, don't think I follow the reasoning. 1358 would give you one 10-day period or two five-day periods to hunt pheasants. Finding birds in the pheasant belts is no mystery. Quality cover + food + water - excessive pressure = birds. You shouldn't need a bunch of extra days just to find birds.

Now access is a different thing, but these days, unless you confine your hunting to public areas, access isn't something to take care of while on the hunt anyhow. And, if you didn't work on access until you got there, you can't get what access you can and get in all the hunting you want in 5 days? How long of a trip does it take to get this done? I know you're less than thrilled about 1385, but I'm not sure what it is about 1358 that's going to drive you or anyone else to an outfitter?

Increased license fees are a funny thing. They are hugely complained about, but rarely affect hunting demand, particularly when they're moderate and in line with neighboring states. ND had lagged way behind in license prices, and 1358 puts us close/just behind other states with equal or less quality hunting. 1358 is also important so that commerce in the duck belts is better assured that available waterfowl licenses are being bought by actual watefowl hunters.

If I still lived in the Twin Towns, I'd probably be grumbling about 1358 too. Then, next fall, when starting my third upland trip, I'd plunk another $85 down and buy my second license. 1358 would provide me no motivation to head to an outfitter.


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

Dano2:

As a non-resident, I don't feel like the increased fees are a big deal. Simply stated, these fees put No.Dak. on the same playing field as most states. After all, if $170 buys only one memorable hunt with my friends over a ten day period ($17 a day versus something like ski lift tickets at $60 a day?), can you really put a price tag on a life long memory (especially one captured on film)? Add to that a first hunt with your son or daughter? Truly priceless.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Well said Bioman.....Well said!!!!!!!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

With 1307 and 2048 taking the limelight there hasn't been much said about the upland bills.I find it interesting that the waterfowl laws allow 14 days or 2 seven day periods for a season that lasts 40-50 days and upland would be only 10 days or 2 five day periods.Yet pheasant season last twice as long at almost 100 days and grouse season is over 100.
Therefore,I agree with Dan.I would like to see at least 3 five day periods.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Ken and Dan please educate me on the 3-5's I can see where this will make very little difference on pressure and would make it better for the famliy members that come home for the holidays. What other benefits do you see with this change.

The draw back from a freinds point of view is that it adds more pressure during the first three weekends. THat it will encourage more leasing of land etc...

Ron


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

I would favor the three-fives only if the multiple license feature were dropped and one of the threes had to used b/4 pheas opener or after 12/1. Net effect: any nonresident still gets a lot of hunting opportunities for $85; nonresident family of landowners or others with strong ND roots (who we call "favored sons") can hunt 3 of: grouse trip, pheas opener, Thanksgiving, and Christmas, all for one $85 rather than two; we take some pressure off the real hot periods and spread it to the less pressured periods (although in the area I hunt there's not much time anymore where there isn't a fairly high amount of pressure); and we take some pressure off the non-fee ground from a relatively small but greatly affecting percentage of nonresidents who make trip, after trip, after trip each fall and tend to also focus on and compete heavily with residents for the shrinking amount of non-fee ground.

Outfitters have not spoke strongly against a proposal like this in the past becuase their average customer is a one-trip, four-day guy. Hopefully general hospitality would see that days lost from the heavy-use nonresidents will be made up by residents who have given up on some of the better areas.

But a criticism of some resident hunters is somewhat valid here and needs to be considered. The days of section after section of unposted productive ground are gone. If any relief is otained, it will still be important for residents to make the effort to knock on doors and make phone calls. Lots of us already do so, so we know that personal landowner contact isn't a substitute for getting some relief from hunter-days in today's environment, but if we get some relief, to get access you're going to need to ask. Like I said, I think most residents now do ask a lot, but I hear a few that talk about driving around looking for unposted ground. Great if you can find it, but often times a posted sign with a phone number is just as good.

All that said, we'll have to look long and hard whether we try to interject changes into 1358. I think the above changes would turn 1358 from a good bill to a great bill (something there for a lot of different people). But, unless we think it would fly, prudance may dictate that we leave 1358 alone so as not to put the whole enchilada at risk.


----------



## Fattire (Feb 19, 2003)

In Colorado there is always talk about limiting out of state Elk hunting but it never happens because the towns on the western slope would be hurt financially so badly.

If you put so many restrictions on free lance hunters you will only hurt your economy, while most freelance hunters only come one or two long weekends the idea of restrictive license make me just want to stay south in NE and KS where you pay $75 but a least you can hunt as much as you want. I drive to either KS or NE for most weekends during the season if they had limited license they would miss out on a lot of my money spent while I am there.

I am also willing to bet that 80% of free lance NR pheasant hunters are gone after the first month of the season that is how it is in NE and KS. So why create ill will with restrictive license.

I have lived in Idaho and now Colorado and have seen the increase in population and the changes it makes on hunting but legislating regulations and not letting the F&G make those decisions seems strange to me and will at some point push people and there money to other places or force them to give up hunting all together.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I have relatives that come and hunt with me.They usually come the first weekend and they are teachers so they come during teachers conv.That's it until thanksgiving and Christmas.I have hunted the past couple of years at Christmas in the prime area of SW ND and the motel isn't even half full.We never see anyone else hunting and almost all landowners let us hunt then as compared to the month of Oct.I guess I would like to see the resource used and the motels and restuarants have the benefit,if resident hunters aren't there anyway.
Plus if the bill that only residents can hunt GNF land becomes law it would take some non-res pressure off the first week.The legis and governor have asked the GNF to put more land into PLOTS and this can only make for great first week hunting by residents..With a 100 day season,2 five day periods are too restrictive.
I would also like to see the month of Sept not count toward their days.When I hunt grouse,I never see any non-res.


----------



## Dano2 (Oct 8, 2002)

Right on Ken, but I'm afraid this ones pretty much done with.
Glad I already found private land to hunt on in southern MN.
Sounds like the birds are coming back quite well in MN
:beer:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Thanks again for the info guys, I'm still not sure what to think I guess I will spend the weekend pondering this while at the Dome.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Fattire, lots of threads on lots of posts covering the issues you're raising. All different thoughts and perspectives. Not trying to dodge your points, just too much to rehash again here.

Ken, we must hunt quite different areas. For pheasants, the areas I hunt are busy (maybe not packed, if you want to use opening weekend as the measure of packed) every weekend I'm there, which is 3-4 times each fall, spread from beginning to end. Have never hunted SW the weekends of Christmas, but lots of traffic the past couple of years on "closing weekend". And except during years of heavy snow, always plenty of traffic SE the late season - at least on weekends. Lot's of times late season, you're either in them thick or not in them at all. Pressured throughout the season and influenced by weather, these critters bunch up a great deal towards the end too, and there wouldn't be room for everyone like in the beginning, unless you all joined in posse style. For grouse, one of the areas I hunt is 2 1/2 hours from town and the other about 5. Both of these areas get heavy traffic (with probably more nonres than res) the first week. Different areas, different experiences.

While I'd rather see the 3 5's, one license, I don't feel the current form of 1358 is unreasonable either. It's the same format SD has been for many years. I'd be surprised if it will affect hunting pressure much, if at all. For those that the buy/lease, $100 every 10 days is nominal compared to their initial investment. For freelancers, even those that would only hunt weekends, it's $25 per day. Don't mean to say that it's not a factor, and it certainly would be for a dad with a couple of young but older than 16 year old kids (2227 will take car of the 16 and unders nicely), but for the bulk of nonresidents, not much in the grand scheme of a trip.

D2, nice to hear about the birds in So. MN. I had some tag-along access to some pretty good ground that way before coming back here 4 years ago. Anytime after the first couple weekends, it was a great day when you'd bump a handful of birds and maybe shoot a rooster a head. After doing that a bunch of times, I quit complaing about driving 16 hours over about 54 and having a day and a half of actually getting the pooch on some birds.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Hunting pheasants and grouse in December is for real pheasant hunters.In October it is pheasant shooting not hunting.I would guess only the real diehards are out there when it is cold and the birds are much wilder.
I guess I just look at the 14 day waterfowl with a 50 day season and a 10 day upland with a 100 day season and see the resource being underutilized.
It will be interesting to see how many licenses are sold if this bill becomes law,and non-res might have to choose between waterfowl and upland.I would bet both numbers will go down,and we will get a true counting of each.


----------



## NDJ (Jun 11, 2002)

I agree Ken...the state may not see 30,000 waterfowl hunters, especially if it drys up....I think this bill will do as much to cap waterfowlers(or get a true count) as any other bill...My buddies from MN probably won't spend the extra money to hunt ducks.

Also I believe last years cap was filled due to guys adding the waterfowl for such a low cost.


----------



## Curt Wells (Jan 13, 2003)

Guys,

Some of you seem to be forgetting the real reason for the restriction on the number of days for upland hunters. It's to reduce pressure but more so, it is designed to prevent nonresidents from purchasing land and farms in North Dakota because they and their "friends that pay them" can hunt the entire 100+ days of the upland season. That's almost a third of the year! If they can only hunt ten or fifteen days (I prefer the 3 five-day periods/one sale feature too, or allow a maximum of two licenses to be purchased) they won't buy land and drive up the cost of that land and lock out residents, freelance nonresidents and even outfitters. That is the best reason to get this bill passed.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

DL commerce made a big deal last fall about how the $10 add-on contributed to the early cap sell out. Undoubtedly there was some of that, but many feel maybe 1 to 1 1/2% of the waterfowl licenses were taken by those who really didn't hunt them.

But the cap sold in early October, and ND continues to get attention on the internet, etc. Barring major weather factors, We'd sell 30k in a heart-beat next year.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Curt...I agree...but the current bill allows more than 1 license to be bought.So anyone with enough money to buy land for hunting won't be bothered by having to get more than 1 license.So we won't be accomplishing anything that will keep them from doing that.


----------



## rickygdogg (Nov 6, 2002)

Do you guys really think you are accomplishing anything by complaining on this site?? Let things go would ya. Tired of reading all the compaints!!!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

It's a free country Ricky...which means you don't have to read this if you don't want to.


----------



## rickygdogg (Nov 6, 2002)

I wont be reading this garbage anymore. You all complain about the same things day in and day out. Gets old. Find something new to talk about. Im going to fishing buddy to get some real reports and forums.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Ken,
I do want to hear your opposition. I am not sure I really buy your "underutilized" idea. Your claim is based on observations during a totally open, unrestricted, high numbers seasons. While you might call it "underutilized" everyone else in the continent calls it "unusable". They don't want to freeze their butts off hunting in temps near 0. Simply not an option - most wouldn't come if it were free (which it essentially is). You would need to change hunter preferences, not manage the resource differently. Of course, we're different, but we choose to live here too....

M.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

opps


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Curt as much as I agree with the nonres purchasing, you will garner very little support from the older retiring farmer who is more likely to support a resident hunter first.

I will ask this of you. You can paint your house, put in new windows to increase its market value, but you cannot sell that house to someone from MN or Florida, only from ND, do you veiw that as fair.
Now turn that around and apply it to a farmer using his land as a retirement income and see how it sits. I understand the argument that it drives up land values and hurts the primary economy in rural ND, with a Rep. controled house and senate any changes will more than likey have to be based on natural resource problems or remain tax value neutral. I feel that the resource issue and ND residents right to access that resource first is the reason that we got 2048 passed the senate but if you make it into a landowners land restriction this and every other bill will get swatted hard. We need to learn from 2048 and make sure that our #'s add up.

I spoke with a friend from and other district this a.m. and he is in the House, we will do more harm for this and other pending legislation unless we make sure that land purchases by nonresidents is shown as the negative it is for local businesses and farmers especially beginning farmers having to compete unfairly and pushing land values above a sustaiable cash flow level.We cannot come off as city hunters telling a landowner who they can sell too. Just some words of caution I do agree with you.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

MRN...I'm not opposed to this bill,I just think 10 days out of a 100 day season is being too restrictive.I guess I would like to see more days and only buying 1 license.

" everyone else in the continent calls it "unusable.
How are pheasants unuseable?


----------



## Curt Wells (Jan 13, 2003)

Hardwaterman,

Your analogy doesn't quite compute. By allowing nonresidents to hunt upland game for 100+ days, we are paying for the painting of the house and building on an addition for the owner. We are doing that at our option, not at the demand of the owner, so we can change our contribution if we must.

No one is telling a landowner who he can sell his land to. If someone from out of state wants to buy his land, so be it. But that doesn't mean the Game and Fish Dept. and the state of North Dakota are obligated to pass laws and regulations that increase the value of that land.

Also, if that older, retiring farmer who is more likely to support resident hunters, that you mention, sells his land to a nonresident, then it all really doesn't matter does it? Access to that land will be gone forever.

I understand your points, but I'm also confused. On one hand you state that we can't give the impression that we're telling a landowner what to do with his land, then in the next paragraph you state we have to make sure everyone understands the negative aspects of out-of-state land purchases. Maybe I'm mis-reading it, but that seems contradictory.

Finally, if we don't do something to curb this problem of nonresidents purchasing land, are we to just accept the concept of the hunting land of North Dakota being owned by absentee landowners? Are we to just give it up and let things progress the way they are? I would much prefer that North Dakota's land is owned by family farmers, both young and old.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

"unuseable"

They exist in a sub-zero temperature. They might as well exist on Mars because it would be a lot easier to hunt them there. Subzero? Beach is unuseable in that temp, so is the "hunting resource". How can anyone go outside in that temperture. (Not our local point of view, but the view of most living south of us.) That is why the hotels are half empty in December even with NO restrictions.

Only 1 lis.? Who in their right mind will choose -25 deg December over a nice 40 deg October?

M.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I don't hunt pheasants when it is below zero.I have hunted the past 4-5 years in Dec. and have yet to encounter subzero temps.But you may underestimate our Minn. neighbors.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

About 5-6 years ago, on "closing weekend", woke up in Dickinson on Saturday morning and looked at the thermometer - minus 20, raw temperature. Sun came up, not a lick of wind or cloud in the sky, and it turned out to be one of my most enjoyable and memorable days of upland hunting ever. No/little snow on the ground, and birds were holding nicely in light cover. Flushed many roosters under foot behind my pointing lab in knee-high cover. Even with the cold, it just don't get much better than that.......


----------



## SiouxperDave (Sep 3, 2002)

Curt, Thanks for your insight. You are one of the few who have touched on the main reason most people want a cap - land access.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Come on, Dave, don't put words in his mouth or try to boil this down to the simple issue of access again. When we get dry again, even if every square inch of dirt statewide were open to hunting, we could not have 65,000 hunters in this state and maintain quality hunting. Access is an issue, but you can't bundle every issue under the name of access.


----------



## SiouxperDave (Sep 3, 2002)

Dan, Here are a couple of snippets from Curt's two previous posts. Maybe I'm incorrectly interpreting what he wrote but I don't believe I'm putting words in his mouth.

"Some of you seem to be forgetting the real reason for the restriction on the number of days for upland hunters. It's to reduce pressure but more so, it is designed to prevent nonresidents from purchasing land and farms in North Dakota because they and their "friends that pay them" can hunt the entire 100+ days of the upland season."

"Also, if that older, retiring farmer who is more likely to support resident hunters, that you mention, sells his land to a nonresident, then it all really doesn't matter does it? Access to that land will be gone forever."


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Dave, I'll let Curt speak for himself, and hopefully you will too. Again, access is an issue, but not the only issue. I wish it were that simple, then we could buy our way out of this mess by jacking everyone's licenses $20 and go get a whole bunch of public access. G&F and those who have dug into the issue heavy have concluded that access is an element, but only so much can be done by securing so much of it. Quality hunting available to more than the wealthy will be maintained, if at all, by improving access and taking other steps along the lines we're working on this session. 1358, 1050 and 2048.


----------



## SiouxperDave (Sep 3, 2002)

Dan, I never claimed access was the only issue. Now you're putting words in my mouth.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Dave, if you and I spent a day together in the duck blind, we'd either have the best time of our lives or the only ones walking out alive would be the dogs - think it's about even odds.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

I could be there to moderate & tell ya both to SHUT UP :wink: 
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.When the ducks were coming :lol: :beer:

.
.
.
.
.
.PS I'd save the dogs - if they Fetch ducks


----------



## Curt Wells (Jan 13, 2003)

Gentlemen,

Easy boys.....

Obviously, these issues are not as simple as access. Anyone who thinks that if we throw up an electrified fence around North Dakota and we residents will have unlimited access to private land, is kidding themselves. We will NEVER be able to buy enough access in North Dakota. We will ALWAYS have to rely on the hospitality of the private landowner.

That being said, we are dealing with many different problems, not the least of which is trying to put too many hunters on too little land, at certain times of the year in some areas. That sentence alone should illustrate the depth of our problems.

As I've written many times, we cannot simply look at the conditions we're hunting under right now. We have to look at the changes that have occurred in the past three or four years and then try to anticipate where we'll be in the next three or four years. Personally, that scares the hell out of me. And that's why we have to act now on bills such as 2048, 1050 and 1358. The kinds of problems we're facing are essentially irreversible. If we hesitate, we'll all be on the outside looking in.


----------



## Dano2 (Oct 8, 2002)

Off subject just for one second please, sorry.

Dan B. where did you get your lab?
I've been seeing and hearing more about these
pointing labs and would like to find out a little more.

thanks


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

First, guys, don't misinterpret the posts between me and Dave. Notice the smilies at the end of each of our messages. We don't always agree, but Dave's a reasonably bright guy  and he's quick to sieze on any chance to make a point. I can appreciate that. No harm intended by our messages - or I suppose I should just speak for myself......... 

I'll digress a little too. One thing that's surprised the heck out of me during this session is how good and decent some of our strongest opponants are. I've talked several times to many who are fighting hard against us, and if we were talking about anything other than hunting, I think we'd get along great. The names I'm including in this list would surprise you. We'll go toe-to-toe on this stuff, and I know they'll do ALL they can to tank us, but sometimes I have a tendency to confuse the position for the person. These are tough issues, and I think they tend to bring out the utmost stubborness in us. Hopefully we all find a way through this and can all calm down again after the sesson.

Okay, back from the metaphysical, D2, got my lab out of a kennel around Spooner called Cranberry Creek. They didn't promote the pups as pointers and I didn't do any training in that regard - just happend. But, it's really cool, and his replacement (he's 10 now) I think will come from a pointing line.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Curt I do agree with you and I support this bill I was trying to point out how quickly a statement that we are trying to stop the land aquistion with this bill will not set well with the majority of older farmers and give the opponents the opening to exploit a single issue. You made the statement that the intent is to limit nonresident purchasing land.

This tells a farmer that he is losing a potental buyer to compete for that which he has worked to aquire. The result in his eyes will be a negative veiw of this bill. Single issue but still a negative view.

Explain to that same farmer that limiting nonresidents is in the best interest of the long term well being of the local community and he will support the bill.

Simple but real views of our older generation of farmers. I have talked to many farmers this past year and it boils down to perceptions, and single misunderstood statements have a greater effect on this straightforward thinking people. Your comment that the land is lost anyway is not correct if that land stays in the hands of ag related ownership there is the possiblity of access.

Dan- Pointing labs I always thought they where in the same class as pink elephants, always talked about and never seen :lol:


----------



## Curt Wells (Jan 13, 2003)

Hardwaterman,

Read carefully what I wrote. It is not incorrect. I wrote; if your landowner sells to a NONRESIDENT, that land is lost forever. It would be highly unlikely a resident, or freelance nonresident, would get access to hunt that land ever again. That's just reality.

I also stated that I would much prefer land is owned by family farmers so my position there is clear.

Also, ask neighboring landowners, seed dealers, implement dealers, young farmers and small town businesses which type of landowner they prefer - a family farmer with kids in school or a rich guy from Connecticut who only shows up to hunt in the fall? I know which one I prefer and if that upsets some people, I'm sorry. It's simply not possible to accomplish anything if we fear someone will be upset, because someone always will be, regardless of what we do or don't do.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Curt 
This is not about fear but perception of the mesage. You are well recognized and have spoken in front of many people in the Legislature. A statement that can be twisted and shown as greedy or limiting to a landowners rights can do more harm than good. I spent a lot of time last summer and fall listening to feeling concerning hunting issues and every time someone brought up hunting issues the tone of sentiment went against resident hunters if the statement or question led to landowner rights infringements real or perceived.

Statements by the Sportsmen Alliance and other groups taken out of context had the area I hunt in pretty steamed up and ready to fight. It was not until later when all the dust settled and the true facts came out that positive sentiment and understading retuned. You hunters are all greedy that is what I herd over and over.

Farmers and business men want the land to stay in ag ownership, but very few would not take the highest price regardless who the buyer is. A very important and underlying fact behind my first post.

Keep up the good work do what you think is right we do need your voice and name recognition, I was just trying to impart some insight of a quiet but respected segment of rural ND that when slighted has a mighty roar and nasty bite.

P.S. Met your son and daughter in-law and grandson last summer,a very fine family you should be proud.

Ron


----------



## Curt Wells (Jan 13, 2003)

Hardwaterman,

I appreciate your input and involvement in these issues. There is a lot of emotion on both sides, as well as good arguments. That's exactly what makes this such a difficult time for us all. I really don't know if there is a solution, but doing nothing is not an option. Take care

Curt


----------

