# Fargo Forum Article



## HuntnLab (Jan 24, 2003)

Has everyone seen the front page of the forum today?? What the hell dosent Gov. Pawlenty have anything better to do than worry about hunting issues with OUR state. I am so ticked off at the whole thing, I just cant beleive it, well Hoven better have some balls now to tell him to mind his own business. Any one elses thoughts?


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

The MN governor REALLY needs to mind is OWN business. Take care of MN....I think it needs much more attention. Hoeven had a nice comment on the situation. He stated that he had just met with Pawlenty for two days last week and the subject never came up. Can you say' LIP SERVICE" ?

Maybe the outcome of this will be that I won't have to pay $83.00 per person to hunt ducks in MN and pay almost $150.00 in Fishing license Fees for my family, although if the state of MN raised their fishing license to $100.00 per season, it would be well worth the time spent on the water.

Hey if MN wants to restrict something, why not talk apples to apples. Restrict ND Hunters visiting MN to 2 - 7 day periods for ducks and restrict our time to pheasant hunting.....I don't think there would be much whining on our side. Like I said on prior posts, go after SD too, they're restricting your hunting opportunities much more than ND.

If the Forums intention was to infuriate resident hunters by printing this Bull S*&T, then they've accomplished their goals. WHEN is the Forum going to get somebody on board who actually KNOWS the hunting issues. One paragraph states, "Also, out-of-state residents can not hunt in North Dakota Oct. 11-17." By the end of the paragraph, he finally states that its on, "state owned lands and other hunting lands controlled by the state". No mention of PLOTS or how much land is involved. Another paragraph, "Nonresidents' hunitng grounds also will be more restricted than those open to North Dakotans". Come on Mr. Writer, sounds like NRs have THEIR own land to hunt and ND hunters have theirs. MAYBE, JUST MAYBE the Forum might want to have someone write their hunting stories that has ACTUALLY HUNTED AT ONE POINT IN THEIR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## HuntnLab (Jan 24, 2003)

I agree lol they might as well drag SD into this whole mess then, besides why on gods green earth would I want to hunt in MN when I have the best duck and goose hunting here in ND? besides I think MN has much bigger issuses and problems than squablling over ND hunting laws. LIke I said they just ned to mind there own business., Can you only imagine if 2048 would've passed., Who started this bickering anyways? MN gov?


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Border hunting battle begins
By Don Davis
The Forum - 08/27/2003
ST. PAUL -- Minnesota's top wildlife official is taking aim at North Dakota anglers and Gov. Tim Pawlenty may provide added ammunition in a growing dispute over North Dakota's new nonresident hunting regulations.

Gene Merriam, Minnesota's Department of Natural Resources commissioner, and Pawlenty say they want North Dakota to change its new nonresident hunting regulations. They say Minnesotans should enjoy the same opportunities given to North Dakota anglers in the Land of 10,000 Lakes.

"In fairness to our hunters and anglers, we have to address the issue," Merriam said Tuesday.

Last week, in an interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Merriam was more pointed:

"We don't think it makes sense to escalate the arms race by being retaliatory. But they (North Dakotans) can't come over here and enjoy our lakes in the summer and expect our citizens to put up with some pretty onerous provisions during the hunting season there."

During a Saturday meeting with about 90 Minnesota outdoorsmen and politicians in Nicollet, Minn., Pawlenty said he's requesting a meeting with North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven to discuss the issue.

Hoeven said Tuesday he's willing to talk, but the new rules were thoroughly discussed during the last legislative session. Hoeven gave no indication he is willing to budge.

"If Gov. Pawlenty wants to give some input, I certainly am going to listen," Hoeven said.

The Pawlenty administration puts the controversy high on its priority list and hopes to schedule a meeting with Hoeven within a month, said the Minnesota governor's spokeswoman.

"While he does not look to retaliate on that issue, he does want to raise the issues and have a good conversation about a number of outdoors issues," Press Secretary Leslie Kupchella said. "It's just a bit premature to say at this point what he will do if North Dakota does not change its rules. First things first, and that is to have that meeting with Gov. Hoeven."

Pawlenty was more direct when talking to Saturday's gathering in Nicollet.

"I'm going to go up and tell him (Hoeven) this cannot go forward on this basis, with this amount of tension and frustration and, frankly, this amount of unfairness," the Star Tribune quoted Pawlenty as saying. "We will seek out ways to get his voluntary cooperation to bring some fairness. If that's not successful, we may have to use other means."

The Pawlenty administration won't say what those "other means" could be.

Hoeven didn't seem worried. But he was puzzled why Pawlenty did not mention the issue when the two attended a National Governors' Association meeting earlier this month.

"He hasn't talked to me about it, and I was with him two days last week," Hoeven said.

The president of the Minnesota Outdoors Heritage Alliance said his members are happy Pawlenty is involved.

"The governor is hearing what the grass-roots sportsmen of Minnesota have said," Mark LaBarbera said. "The sportsmen are very much up in arms. The governor is trying to be the voice of reason to find a reasonable solution."

New laws and North Dakota Game and Fish Department rules give residents a week's head start over nonresidents in many hunting seasons, including ducks and geese, which start for North Dakotans Sept. 27.

The head start is common in other states, Hoeven said.

Nonresidents' hunting grounds also will be more restricted than those open to North Dakotans. Hoeven said it's part of managing hunting resources.

Also, out-of-state residents cannot hunt in North Dakota Oct. 11-17. Legislators apparently intended the law only to apply to pheasant hunters, but it was written in such a way that it bans all nonresident hunters from state-owned lands and other hunting lands controlled by the state.

That week is when many Minnesota students are out of school as teachers attend an annual conference.

Nonresidents also will pay more for many North Dakota hunting licenses.

Hoeven said he doesn't understand complaints about license fee increases. North Dakota's are in line with most nearby states, he said.

Minnesota charges $83 for a duck license, compared to $85 in North Dakota, Hoeven said. And Minnesota charges North Dakotans $10 more for fishing licenses than North Dakota charges Minnesotans.

Minnesota hunters will benefit from North Dakota's efforts to eventually increase its hunting acreage to 1 million, Hoeven said. That's up from about 160,000 acres in the recent past and nearly 350,000 acres today.

Merriam said the combined changes rile Minnesota hunters.

He knows about upset sportsmen firsthand. Merriam, a captive audience while in his dentist's chair Monday, heard the familiar complaints.

The dentist said North Dakotans are welcome in Minnesota -- so much so natives can hardly buy property near Detroit Lakes because so many North Dakotans are in the market, driving up prices.

"Why do those folks get to come over here all summer long and catch our fish?" the dentist asked Merriam.

Merriam also has firsthand knowledge about hunting in North Dakota. He has been a frequent North Dakota hunter, especially to the Stanley area in the northwestern part of the state. He doesn't understand why North Dakotans would want to keep him and his money away.

The commissioner recalled a hunting visit when he stayed in a Devils Lake motel: "It was all Minnesota and Wisconsin license plates."

Hoeven said there actually is a bright side to the Minnesota-North Dakota dispute: "Even this discussion -- it is people talking about North Dakota and North Dakota having something people want."

Readers can reach Forum reporter Don Davis at (651) 290-0707


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Do Minnesotans forget that all of the nonresident property owners pay property taxes to the state of Minnesota that suport schools and other things that the land owners do not use. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Cheese and rice, DOD must be applying some new stealth technology to the entire state of SD or its entire border is shielded by a curtain of teflon. They skate again........


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

Dan , you are right on the money!


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

I have been invited to hunt SD (mostly just to meet people) in the past - But their overly restrictive Waterfowl Laws have not let me go - I won't pay to hunt Chinese Chickens - (Maybe at a preserve to train the dog) But thats about what it has turned into with all the pay to hunt Pheasant places anyway :roll:

But I applaud their (SD) taking a stance & sticking to it :thumb: - No wonder people want to live & move their Businesses to SD

Would'nt we want people to want to come here - instead of just give it all away & when we turn into just another "Used to be Great Hunting State" & wonder what went wrong ??? :huh:

You know they will get over it & still come, even if it's zoned more & a lottery with 1st 2nd & 3rd choices for areas.

I think the Fargo & Grand Forks Fat Cats that own Lake property can afford to pay more - (If that is what they want) :roll: Too bad $$$ gets to be the bottomline more often, than the resources & good Management ??? :eyeroll:

You suppose Hoven is finally getting it ??? Imagine what they would do without many of us telling the rest of the story :eyeroll: Guys like Hoven who hunt once or twice a year, at Places like Cannonball & think that is Hunting & Great :roll: - I bet he has learned a great deal since that whole fiasco ??? I sure hope so


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

SD ==> No income tax. No or very low corporate tax.


----------



## TimR (Oct 8, 2002)

Why do all you Nodaker's care what Pawlenty says to Hoevan?

Imagine if Pawlenty said we would triple NR rates for all licenses only for ND residents - from what I've read of all your opinions of hunting and fishing in MN - you should all utter a collective "who cares?". It's been written that the fishing is better in ND, the large game, small game, upland, waterfowl, why in the world would a self-respecting nodaker get worked up over what the MN governor has to say, It SURELY shouldn't affect you.

BobM has it right. Those with the $$ could care less about hunting PLOTS land for the first week of Pheasant. They are booked up with G/O on leased land. It hurts low dollar Joe Average like me. I respect your heritage, I certainly appreciate your liberal trespass laws, and I understand your desire to protect the good thing you have going.

I still don't understand why you would care about Pawlenty/Merriam.

Tim


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

I really don't care so much about those two but the idea that they are trying to (or saying they will try to) influence our governor does concern me. I don't like the idea that someone I didn't have, and won't have a chance to vote for is trying to influence the outcome of public policy in ND. That in my opinion is not right and hopefully Hoeven understands this. Hoeven would be smart to stand back and say this is something that the PEOPLE of North Dakota are going to decide.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

We are not "going to decide it", it already *WAS* decided by the ND Legislature last session when they voted on 1223. The spinners are trying to say this was a mistake in interpetation, no hunting by NRs on state leased land the first week of pheasant season. That was exactly what the law read and everyone knew it. Now the Commercial Hunting Aristocracy is trying to wiggle to subvert the intent of the law. The Attorney Generals opinion was perfectly clear. Done deal.

If Pawlenty doesn't like it, have him talk to Fetch.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Sounds like another Politician Grand Standing & opening Mouth before knowing all the facts :roll: I thought these guys had advisors that were suppose to know what is up on issues ??? :roll: You see that is exactly what our Hoeven has had to learn the hard way :roll: & many of us are not sure he has ??? - Because he never ever really replys to us :roll: Maybe our guy has learned to well too fast :roll: :huh:


----------



## cootkiller (Oct 23, 2002)

I agree with the fact that why should we give a hoot what that whiny little pawlenty is wheezing about over there in MN. 
Part of me says yeah he shouldn't try to tell us how to run our state, but you know what. Alls it comes down to is that he is acting like the spoiled little rich kid who doesn't get his way on the playground.
(in a whiny high pitched voice, "I'm gonna tell my daddy and he is going to get your daddy fired' Waaa waaaa waaaaa.) 

1. Who in there right mind would go to MN to hunt waterfowl. Oh my god, that is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard.

2. We should eradicate the pheasant anyway since all it is as another has said before a 'chinese chicken', why is there even a season, they should be like rabbits, open year round.
3. As far as fishing goes, aside from the boundary waters no lake in MN comes close to comparing to Sakakawea, let alone Devils Lake. 
Don't even say Mille lacs cause if you can't keep anything you catch than you can't really call it fishing, you call it feeding the fish, and we all know that there hasn't been a fish caught out of that lake that fits into the slot since J. Lo was a virgin. I will give you the boundary waters my minnesota neighbors but in all actuality the fishing is better on the canadian side, wouldn't you agree.

18 days till W-Day. 
But only 5 until the great canadas get to die, whoooooooo hoooooooo.

For anyone that wants to make the trip up, the bachelor party is on saturday in Cando. Stop by Gordy's bar saturday afternoon and join on the festivities.

cootkiller

:beer: :beer:


----------



## bglars (Aug 27, 2003)

I am in the military, born and raised in ND, and look forward every year to get back home to hunt. I keep my residency in ND because I am loyal to the state and my roots are firmly planted. I've hunted many other states all over the country and I know exactly what it is like to be a nonresident hunter. This issue between ND and MN is not about who has the better hunting and fishing, the higher fees or the easiest tresspass, its about respect for the land. MN shut down MN long ago to protect themselves againt the reckless MN hunter. SD, IA, jumped on board, now ND...finally. Problem is, you MN guys have a handfull that ruin it for all of you. Every year I find myself "defending my property" after spending all damn year defending my country! I've got a story for every single year I've been back, it goes like this...I've got it all set up, crawled in earily, geese in front, ready to come off the slough. Then, here comes a truck, guys hanging out the windows and fireing shots into the birds and driving off intending to return later to pick up the birds. Who could it be? I know the answer before I ever see the plate. Be advised, I may have a postwar flashback this year and lay down some supressive fire. :sniper:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Geez Coot...I can't believe we agree on something.That is,everything except about those pheasants.I love hunting them.
Congratulations on your upcoming wedding. :beer:

bglrs...get out the shoulder held rocket launchers!


----------



## Brad Anderson (Apr 1, 2002)

It's nice to see that I'm not the only one upset over today's article. First off the term Non-resident doesn't mean Minnesotans only, it applies to anybody who doesn't live in North Dakota. Nonresident hunting has become an issue because the pure overcrowding of people coming to hunt in ND. I read something in the article about ND residents buying up all the land around DL, so then what about all the nonresident big whigs who lease up huge amounts of land in ND just to hunt??? The word retaliatory was also used in the article, how could MN retaliate against ND for the new nonresident hunting regs?? If MN legislators restricted ND fisherpeople in MN, ND could just turn around and restrict MN fisherpeople in ND. Cootkiller, being from Devils Lake, can testify that there is a huge number of people from MN that fish there YEAR ROUND. When it comes down too it there is one point that trumps all, BIRD HUNTING IN MN IS NOT GOOD, or why else would there be so many MN people wanting to hunt in ND?? I think Pawlenty should be a little more concerned about the severe budget crunch going on in MN rather than worrying about hunting issues in a different state. The last point really illustrates that the "TOP PRIORITY" of Pawlenty isn't the majority of people in MN, rather a few select rich people in MN who are upset cause they can't get there way in a different state. CRY ME A [email protected]#*ING RIVER!!! Last of all, every state some how restricts nonresident hunters, so why should ND be the exception!!!


----------



## lta111 (Aug 19, 2003)

I think ND and SD are doing it right. It doesn't bother me to miss the first week of hunting ducks or pheasants. It also is fine to raise fees to non residents. I have noticed a drastic increase in the number of hunters in the areas I have been going to in the last 15 years. I would rather have one quality trip to your state than two mediocre trips. I can always hit the openers in MN when the hunting isn't too bad. 
I think the MN DNR should do something like you guys for fishing. Reducing the number of fish you can take home or setting up complicated slot limits to force you to return excellent fish that would be great for eating. We probably have a 100,000 nonresident fishermen every year. I think reducing that number would do alot to relax the stupid restrictions and limits that we have to deal with here.


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

bglars, I can remember back when i was in the service too, I did alot of immature things and said some stupid things. (like your last post) You and all the other "super sportsmen" are a laugh a minute. The VA hospital can help if the flashbacks get to be too much for you, threatening to use firearms against someone is a pretty serious statement even if it's a joke to you.


----------



## bglars (Aug 27, 2003)

James, thank you for the complement. You are obviously one of "them". Chapter????


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

In ND, there were only 7,085 individual + 2,046 H/W NR licenses sold to all NR anglers in 2001. Another 29,000 short term (3 or 7 day) NR fishing licenses were also sold. This is everyone not just MN people.

Percentage of MN anglers traveling to ND are smaller. Time spent fishing in ND by MN anglers is less.

Brad ==> access is number 1 reason. Free unrestricted access. No tresspass law would certainly slow the flow.

Upland bird hunting is very good in MN. At the end of most seasons, my upland bird / day success rate in MN is often at or above the level achieved in ND.

Waterfowl hunting is certainly better in the land of 20 thousand sloughs than the land of 10K lakes.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Contrary to the opinions posted by most here, I don't have a problem with Pawlenty wanting to meet with Hoevan. Pawlenty was elected to represent his constituents, and I would be disappointed if he didn't request a meeting to look out for the interests of his people. Let Hoeven look out for our interests and let Pawlenty look out for the Minnesota interests.

Also, Fetch, the answer to your quesition is "No". Hoeven doesn't "get it". In my opinion, his track record makes it plain where he stands on this issue. However, like him or not, he is not stupid. He knows that this will get him some votes and gain some favor with the "joe average". Like with most things, follow the money and always sort through the political posturing.

Now, I have to bring up another issue. One of the major arguments against changing the current trespass law is that wildlife is a public resource and landowners shouldn't be able to deny access to OUR resources. However, now we are telling non-residents that these are only public resources if you are a North Dakota taxpayer, even though the state does receive federal money and non-resident license fees are thrown in the pot along with everybody elses. This is a bit hypocritical, especially since some of the wildlife in question are migratory. The resources are either public or they aren't.

Also, contrary to the opinions of some, the hunting and fishing in MN does not suck. I used to live there, and I have hunted and fished across both states. Granted, the pheasant and waterfowl hunting in ND is world-class. However, anybody that says MN fishing sucks must have never spent any quality time there. The opportunities are endless. Also, the whitetail and ruffed grouse hunting in MN is absolutely awesome. Therefore, I still return to MN to hunt grouse and whitetails each fall, and I might shoot a few pheasants in southern MN when I visit the folks for Thanksgiving. Therefore, I like the ability to travel back and forth the experience the benefits of both states.

Now, before the "If you don't like it, move back" comments start, I'll tell you that I like living in ND. In fact, I gave up quite a bit of salary to move here. For those that also enjoy hunting or fishing in other states, I think that you'll agree that the "US vs THEM" arguments do nobody any good.

I frankly don't care if the people I compete with for access to ND hunting spots are from Minot, Minto, or Minneapolis. I do care, however, when my opportunities are eliminated because of commercial hunting operations. I also care that some so-called sportsmen are further polarizing the relationship between freelancers and landowners by trying to tell landowners what they can do with THEIR land.

We would be much better off framing this access issue in terms of "freelancers vs commercials" than "residents vs non-residents".

BigDaddy


----------



## jimboy (Apr 1, 2003)

I say let us have reciprocity. ND will start charging MN residents who own property here as much as MN is charging NDn's. Then you will here people crying FOUL!!!! If Mn want's to restrict fishing which is not reciprocity but retaliation then ND can further limit NR.

Plawenty should worry about his own state. He will piss off ND and the MN resident will be the one paying for it.

Reciprocity? I'll give you reciprocity uke:


----------



## Dano2 (Oct 8, 2002)

BigDaddy EXCELLENT Facts, probably the best and MOST truthful I've read here yet.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

You are recognizing the same ol problems - But no answers to how this can be done ??? :roll:


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

BigD, I don't understand much of your last thread. In one breath you say landowners don't have a right to restict access to OUR game and that you're ready to do away with the g/o's, and in another breath you're hammering on so-called-sportsmen for telling landowners what they can do with THEIR land.

I believe to fix this mess the g/o industry as a whole (not any particular one) must get checked (not eliminated). But I don't understand what initiative by so-called-sportsmen you might be referring to that imposes on a landowner greater obligations than unfettered access to game (your implications) and the inability to deny access, charge directly for access or rent the land to an outfitter? What initiative are you referring to that you feel is creating a greater wedge than the initiatives you're suggesting.

It's certainly open for debate whether under the public trudst doctrine a landowner can/should charge for access to game, but there shouldn't be any question that he/she has the right to outright deny access. Profiting from and denying/allowing access to game are very different things.

We balance the rights of individuals against the greater good in almost every area, and I also believe for the greater good of ND and all other sportspersons and ND as a whole, the "rights" of landowners to lease lands to g/o's must be checked through the amount of acreage the g/o industry controls in ND. But I'm really curious about what initiatives you think have been crammed down or threatened to be crammed down the throats of landowners that demands of them and their land something more onerous than the inability to deny access and lease to outfitters, both of which you apparantly have no problems with?


----------



## Rem700 (Jul 31, 2003)

Good post Big D! Alas someone with some sense. Dan B. likes to blow his horn but it is sounding more like a kazoo lately.

I agree with you that this has become a Res vs NR game when it should be a freelancer vs G\O fight. I have noticed alot of the anti NR faction is from the eastern 1/3 of the state. I think the biggest problem is that they are not in the Jamestown to Bismarck area and have to feel that they have to compete with the NR. They think if the NR's are limited they will have more land and property to hunt when infact alot of that land will now be leased up by G/O's. When are all you freelancers's (Res and NR's) going to quit fighting each other and focus on the real problem -- the G/o's. Everyone wonders why the bills introduced this past year that would have limited the G/O's were defeated? Maybe it was because we (the freelance hunter) did not pick our battle very well. Did we spread ourselves thin by trying to fight NR's and G/O's? Yes. Who is more threatening? G/O's.

Fetch maybe we should all stick together and fight the right fight. You asked how this can be done? This is exactly how it needs to be done-pick our battle, get the G& F to set limits on the G/O's. They lease up the land and bring less money to our rural economies than a freelancer does. Maybe we should start looking at ideas now for the next legistlative session, in hopes that they get passed. What ever happened to the idea of limiting the number of acres each G/O could lease, or structure the G/O liscenses like area liquer liscenses, only have so many and if they are to start a new business they must buy the liscense from another G/O.

If we were to fight these battles rather than trying to fight our fellow freelancers eventhough they are from another state, maybe the zones would have been done differently, and Gov. Hoeven would not have been so influenced by the G/O's to create the zones he did.

For those of you that can't believe that MN would single out ND NR's with fishing regulations, Wake up. Do you really think that they could single out people from one state? They would have to include 'all' NR's.


----------



## Chesador (Aug 15, 2003)

Looks like ND residents have potentially 30,000 or more NR supporters of restricting Guides and Outfitters. Could me in!

I think this effort needs a leader who is a resident. Perhaps a ND sportsman's organization. Remember, stregnth in numbers. Those G/Os might hire lobbyists and other weasel-like sub-humans to influence your state polititians! For us, it's our heritage, for G/Os it's about the money!


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Rem 700 I gues the fact that we have new licence regulations and increased costs for G/O just appeared out of the blue?

Do to a huge effort by many from all across the state, we have in place SB1050 which by the way our Game and Fish are very happy to have. It is far from complete but without the infomation that we will have in the next session that will come from this bill, it was a very good start.

This bill provides a officer assigned to police the industry paid for in a large part by fee increases. So once again the lack of knowledge that comes with being here 10-14 days a year rears it's head.

Dan has spoken many times about the introduction of laws that would have had a huge impact on NR that we vocally opposed. Our voices where heard, but few of you seem to care or are unwilling to research these issues.

Guys the rules for this year are not going to change nor will they next season on the PLOTS rules. THe Gov can not fo in and eliminate something that has been sighned into law. Get a grip and start looking for an area to hunt if you only used PLOTS, otherwise let this issue drop as we are not doing anything but increasing tension and disrespect.

You can thank your Gov for putting this on the front burner in ND and with resounding support most people I have spoken with that are not connected with hunting and many landowners are seeing this issue of over use and crowding with a different view. I do believe that this has made many of those that did not care or where not aware of the many issues in this state to see the light.

Thank you Gov Pawlenty!


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

I knew that grenade would get a few responses.

Dan, you posted:



> BigD, I don't understand much of your last thread. In one breath you say landowners don't have a right to restict access to OUR game and that you're ready to do away with the g/o's, and in another breath you're hammering on so-called-sportsmen for telling landowners what they can do with THEIR land.


I stated in my posted that many supporters of the current trespass law are arguing that wildlife are a public resource. If you re-read some of my old posts on the trespass lawsuit, you will see that I actually support the rights of landowners to restrict acess to their land. Regardless of whether the wildlife are a public resource, private property is a private resource. Therefore, only party should and will have the final say of who accesses private property: the landowner. Secondly, I think that it flies directly in the face of property rights to tell landowners that they must post their property to keep hunters off, instead of requiring hunters to ask for permission.

This is one of initiatives that I am talking about that is further polarizing the relationships between landowners and hunters. In addition, like it or not, some landowners accept payment from hunters (both resident and non-resident) for access. Some of these payments come from G/O's, but many also come from freelancers. When sportsman tell landowners that they shouldn't be allowed to benefit from being a landowner, and that people should not be allowed to profit from selling a public resource (i.e. wildlife), we can't be surprised when we see "Non-Resident Hunters Only" signs. I have talked to many landowners who are sick of so-called sportsmen telling landowners what landowners can do with their land.

Want to fix the problem? Return profitability to agriculture. If landowners were making money growing wheat or raising cattle, I am convinced that many of these concerns with commercializing hunting would not exist. However, because agriculture is not profitable (and it isn't, with or without govt subsidies), landowners are looking to glean whatever value than can out of their existing resources. Since hunter access is a potential source of income, landowners logically get agitated when restrictions are placed on the number of non-resident hunters.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Big Daddy how do you return profitablity to ag when the Gov has created a subsides control for grain being grown? Most farmers today do not plant based on future market trends nor on supply issues. The majority plant based on what the Gov payment for the planted crop is going to be.

We then turn around in another attempt to create false markets subsides for ethanol as a renewable resource which in turn threatens to reduce huge amounts of additional wet lands that provide the first filter for our drinking water across the nation. Those lost wetland will in turn increase flooding to roads and byeays across many parts of the region, not to metntion the potential huge monetary losses in downstrean communities.

On top of that these plants use large amounts of water daily and huge amounts of N gas which is at a all time high for summer pricing. At what point is enough enough. We all have a cause and effect on each other some rules are made that restrict some rights, while other benifit, but for the most part things balance out.

You have been quick to point out the deficancies but have brought no solutions to the table. I come from a farm background and I realzie the need for subsides and the benifit that the state as a whole recievs from them, but I also realzie that at some point the majority of those that benifit also have a responsiblity to others. This is where you cross into the ethics and morality of life and that is the foudation of this country and this state.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Ron,

I honestly don't know how to return profitability to agriculture. I'm not that smart. However, I would hope that there are folks smarter than me that do know.

One thing that I do know is that we are in a half-$$ssed position when it comes to govt subsidies. Our current subsidies are at a level that allows a farmer to survive but not profit. One solution would be to subsidize to an even greater level so that farming is profitable. The risk here is that we would in essence have govt farms, and I recall from my ecology coursework that public resources are usually the first to be degraded. Many hunters would like this, however, because the land could be viewed as a public resource because of the extent of public support.

The second option is to create trade agreements that are actually fair and use tariffs to prevent cheaper commodities from competing in our domestic markets. This will drive up food prices, however, and we must realize that one of the fundamental rules of keeping a docile population is to keep people fed. When people are hungry, they revolt. I don't know how much the general public is willing to pay for food, but our current prices are artificially low because of govt interference in what should be a free market.

My point is that I think we should address the hunter access issue from a proactive, "problem-based" approach instead of a reactive, "symptom-based" approach. Limiting non-resident hunters is a reactive approach. If we made agriculture profitable, there would be little incentive for landowners to charge for access in the first place. When agriculture is not profitable, we get landowners draining wetlands and plowing fencerow to fencerow like they did in the 80's to extract as much yield per acre as possible, and we get commercialized hunting like we have now.

My God, I'm starting to sound like Econ101.


----------



## Dakota Kid (Aug 17, 2002)

I wonder where the "summit" is going to be? Here is a chance to march on the capitol andlet your views be known. My guess is this is very cleverly orchestrated by the two governors.

Hunting summit planned
By Don Davis 
[email protected]
The Forum - 08/28/2003

ST. PAUL -- Governors from Minnesota and North Dakota plan to meet soon to talk about restrictions North Dakota places on out-of-state hunters.

John Hoeven and Tim Pawlenty apparently only agreed to meet on the subject during a Wednesday telephone call.

"Gov. Hoeven was kind enough to call me and give me his perspective on it today," Pawlenty told two Twin Cities radio talk show audiences Wednesday evening.

New North Dakota upped hunting fees on nonresidents and placed more restrictions on them than in the past. Beginning on his radio show Friday, Pawlenty has criticized the moves and said he wanted to talk over the matter with Hoeven.

The North Dakota governor tried to call Pawlenty earlier in the week, but did not make contact until Wednesday.

"What we decided was I'm going to fly up to North Dakota in the very near future and we will sit down and see if we can't do a comparison of Minnesota and North Dakota's fees and rights and privileges and make sure there is some equity," Pawlenty said. "If there isn't equity, I'm going to try to work with Gov. Hoeven and the North Dakota Legislature to see if we can't constructively address the problem."

Pawlenty, a Republican like Hoeven, said the North Dakota governor "has been very good and balanced about this," laying blame on the Legislature that is not scheduled to meet again until 2005.

"The Legislature has done some things that many Minnesota sportsmen and women feel has disadvantaged them," Pawlenty said.

In an earlier interview, Hoeven defended North Dakota's new rules -- some made by lawmakers and some by his administration -- and did not sound willing to make major changes. But he left the door open Wednesday, saying the rules continue "to be a discussion and evolve."

He said he would not ask for a special legislative session to address the issue.

Hoeven said North Dakota Game and Fish Department officials tell him that after Minnesotans and other out-of-state residents hear details about the new rules, their complaints lessen.

"When somebody calls in, once the whole thing is explained to them, they have a very different perception," Hoeven said.

No Hoeven-Pawlenty hunting summit date has been set, but the Minnesota governor said it will come "hopefully within the month."


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

It would sure be nice if Hoeven would invite Pawlenty to the Cannonball for some wild pheasant hunting in ND. Then he would surely understand why the fees have been increased. :wink:


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

I have said this before, and I am sure it will be said again. the idea of returning profitablitiy to Ag to encourage good landowner sprtsmen relations is a false flag. The farm policy our country uses basically guarantees a continuing decline in the numbers of farms out there. Some farms are doing very well in this environment, others are going out of business. Without complete socialization of Ag, which I do not want, we will never see the econimic condition of farmers better than it is right now, except for maybe one or two year spurts. Long term trend will remain the same. Why? Because farmers will never stop trying to outbid and undercut there neighbors for land, and that is the fixed cost that eats us alive.

MN has made its bed ecologically now trying to farm every inch of the landscape, so now they can lay in it. I could have moved there last year when job hunting, but ND got me because of what it had to offer me, and that was not cash.

My position is that landowners have absolute ability to control the access to their property, but they do not have the ability to through that sell the public resource. Gotta run.


----------



## Brad Anderson (Apr 1, 2002)

Prairie hunter, a couple of your comments seem to lack reason and logic. Access, is it a cause or a consequence? Answer, consequence! THe cause being too many people hunting=overcrowding. You spoke something about percentages, well do the math. MN has how many million people?? ND has something like 700,000 poeple, total. So if you're going to compare apples and oranges, that's fine cause I saw right through that one. I have done more fishing this spring/summer than anybody I know, excluding guides and the like. I can tell you first hand that out of all the NR, MN fisherpeople will outnumber any other state hands down. It just makes sense since MN and ND are neighbors. Finally, don't kid yourself, ND upland bird hunting is far superior to that of MN (unless you don't know where to hunt). Out of all the hunting magazines I have subscriptions too, I have never once seen an article on any type of bird hunting in MN. I wonder why?? SD is the only state in the nation that is even in the same class as ND. Pheasants, grouse and partridge, ND has it all and lots of them. NR need to remember that you are guests in this great state of ours, and that hunting is a STATE right. Therefore residents get to decide who makes the laws around here, not some outta state governor and his band of lobbyists. I have witnessed the quality of hunting dwindle in the past couple of years, and I'm glad ND is being proactive instead of reactive. Sorry, if I offend you but I've had some bad run ins with NR. On the other hand I've met some really nice ones too. We all know that a few bad apples ruin it for everybody.


----------



## Crabby (Aug 27, 2003)

Sounds to me like some Nodaks are staring to get shakey. An eye for an eye. Go Pawlenty! Minnesota nice only goes so far.

Crabby


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

You keep reading BRAAAD. I will keep hunting.

When you throw ruffies into the mix, ND does not even come close to total upland birds harvested and upland birds shot / hunter. Couple that with more acres of public land than there are people in ND and you obviously do not know what you are talking about.

Yes, pheasant , sharptails, and huns offer great hunting in ND and I grew up hunting them (as a resident) all over ND. But your comments are simply misguided and swayed by the outdoor press.


----------



## cancarver (Apr 6, 2002)

interesting, the article states Nd NR lic fees are comparebale to other states it also says MN charges NR $83 to hunt ducks and ND charges $85 and quotes hoevan. He forgot to add when you buy that MN NR license you can also hunt small game, that cost another 80 bucks in ND now.

It also states these NR restrictions are common in other states, name them? Never heard of such micro-manageing a resource in my life.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Cancarver,
SD,MT, Sask. Man. MN just to name the ones that surround us have restrictions on various hunting and fishing activities by NRs. Read back on the forums...you'll see many listed.

The difference on the hunting fees are basically this....ND has World Class pheasant hunting...most years....MN and other states don't. Supply and demand....if you have what someone else wants, shouldn't you get something for it? Not too much demand for pheasant land by ND residents traveling to MN. On the other hand, MN resorts have it over on just about every other state as far as a Great place to vacation....and people are willing to pay for that experience as well.

I'm a ND resident and I've purchased lake shore property in MN....Having grown up in Fargo visiting western MN lake country is the thing to do. Enjoying the lakes of ND just aren't part of the culture for the majority of Eastern ND residents. We pay dearly for the privilege of having a place in MN....because there's a demand for the product, that up until now MN has encouraged. At least it sure helped build some great looking schools in the areas with many lakes. I certainly would never complain as to the costs of this ownership.....it's part of enjoying what MN has to offer.


----------

