# Fee hunting under the gun



## Lvn2Hnt (Feb 22, 2005)

I don't know if this has been posted, but much has already been said about it. Just thought I would share.

Printed in the Bismarck Tribune.



> 02-14-2006: news-columnists
> 
> Taking a stand on the spread of fee hunting
> 
> ...


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Love it, do you suppose the barnes County landowner could be Dick Monson??? We've gone from 402 guides to 223 o/g in 2 years, and it will be down some more this year. O/g's lease and own 523,000 acres and they estimate there is another 1/2 million out there someplace. Dick is still franticly searching for several million that Hildebrand lost. If I was DuBord I would leave the state also. What a mess.


----------



## Lvn2Hnt (Feb 22, 2005)

g/o > one thing I do love, may not agree with - but love, is hearing how the other side thinks. And I'm not being facetious.

I agree, the number of "licensed" G/o's have decreased and there may be a decrease over the next few years, but that does not take into account the hundreds of landowners that are charging to hunt on their own land or their leased land. These types of "g/o's" are not required to be licensed or even register with the state. And if I'm wrong on this, please correct me.

Although I am in favor of regulating this facet of the hunting industry, I believe that we first need to get accurate as possble stats on how many "private" landowners are legally acting as G/o's - in my opinion, if they are charging to hunt, they are providing, in general, an outfitting service - which I think many, including g/o will probably argue with me about.

When we truly know what sort of "opposition" we are up against we can be better prepared to move forward in regulating fee hunting.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Lvn, I hope I get you right this time and not get confused again,comes with old age. A couple of things the number of o/g's are dropping and will continue. Couple of factors that people don't realize is we and the sportsmen supported legislation to put more regulations on Outfitters. In that legislation money was given to commercial enforcement,which by the reports you have been reading is working. Let me say this, its not over yet there are several more outfitters about to make the news. Bruce Burkette and his boys are doing a good job.

Years ago they tried to tell farmers they could no longer charge for hunting. I know many that said fine but when you hunted on there land you were more or less told you would leave them a tip for $100.00 or you will not hunt again. I see this practice as very small and do you want to be the one to tell a farmer he can't charge for some thing on his land ? Not me.

We are very fortunate here that we do not have a tresspass bill like all the other states have. I've hunted in Wyoming and South Dakota and there its common practice to charge out of staters. That is one thing these groups should be more afraid of not a few of us trying to scratch a living.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

G/O.....you are right,it is a mess.

How would you feel about requireing leased land to be posted as such.You put up signs anyway,right?It would make it a lot easier to help hunters to decide if they want to pay or not.Same with day leases.

I know some of the landowners where I hunt in SW ND put up signs saying "daily fee hunting."


----------



## Lvn2Hnt (Feb 22, 2005)

g/o> scary, but I do agree with you on some accounts, but I do not agree that 


> I see this practice as very small


 If I'm reading your post right, I disagree that the practice of the individual farmer charging for access to land. If you want proof just head to Mott.

But I do agree that legislation and GnF efforts have really been working on many fronts. I also agree that it is not fair to tell a farmer that they can't make money from their land - but I also think that there should be some accountability and regulation.

No matter how you look at it, if landowners are charging for use of their land, it is no differenent that charging for lease, farming, etc.... Those "business practices," correct me if I'm wrong, have regulations/accountability and profits from it must be claimed and accounted for. Am I misinformed?

I realize that it will be almost impossible to track and police what a farmer is doing what in terms of hunting and paid access to their land. But, that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be something on the books that outlines who can charge to hunt, what expectations and requirements are and what recouse can be taken if boundaries are crossed.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> But, that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be something on the books that outlines who can charge to hunt, what expectations and requirements are and what recouse can be taken if boundaries are crossed.


Would all that fancy nancy stuff include relatives too?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Ken, I'm all in favour of leased land having both the name of the lessor and lesse on it. Now your day lease proposal is crazy, sorry. You want us to go and post the land in the morning then set out decoys, then post the land again when we leave. Why??? So when guys like Ron drives by he knows who's on the land. Come on Ken your smarter than that, I'd rather be hunting than worried about on whose land anyway.

Liv, Give me a little time and I'll have you agreeing on everthing.  Lets look at Mott or Hettinger county. Outfitters have 43,000 acres in control according to Game and Fish numbers. So how many acres are left in the county? How many people charge all? How much land is non hunting? Now lets look state wide, how many acres are available to hunt PLOTS alone is over 800,000 acres. Maybe Hettinger County its going on, but state wide its very small. Now if want to rent your land for farming there is no law that says I can't. And the first of the year I will give you a 1099 and now we have a paper trail. Now if I give you cash and I send you no 1099 no records. Now if you think all the tax dept. has to worry about is because some farmers didn't report this income which is going be all but impossible to trace dream on. Keep listening I'll convert you yet


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Not to start a whizzin match but is Farming a business or not? Why should one business be treated any different than the rest?

If I lease a piece of property for whatever reason, I am not allowed to do it the "good ol boy network" way I have to have a lease that is signed, noterized and recorded with the state in which I am doing business. We have had this discussion before but I fail to see where the difference between Farming and other businesses allows any leasing that is not of public record?

As far as landowner g/o's lets compare that with other businesses. Why do I have to be regulated in most every aspect of business but a farming business can allow unregulated hunting where money is changing hands?

any thoughts?

Bob


----------



## Lvn2Hnt (Feb 22, 2005)

Thanks Bob, I believe you posed those questions more eloquently than I. That's exactly what I was trying to get it to boil down to.

g/o> I will not go to the other side, I will not go to the other side, I will not go to the other side. :lol:

But, I agree that the tax dept, etc. have far better things on their plate to deal with and regulate, but as I said before, just because the policing of it may be difficult that does not and should not dictate that a landowner, privately run business of hunting shouldn't be addressed legally which would provide legal accountability should a problem or question arise.

At the very least, landowners who charge for hunting should be claiming that income, is that not already required by law for tax purposes? Additionally, it should be addressed legally that landowners register with Game and Fish and/or be licensed.

What exactly is the reasoning behind licensing G/Os? And I am actually looking for viewpoints on this. My prediction is that the reasons would apply to almost equally to landowners charging to hunt, at least on some scale.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

g/o said:


> Ken, I'm all in favour of leased land having both the name of the lessor and lesse on it. Now your day lease proposal is crazy, sorry. You want us to go and post the land in the morning then set out decoys, then post the land again when we leave. Why??? So when guys like Ron drives by he knows who's on the land. Come on Ken your smarter than that, I'd rather be hunting than worried about on whose land anyway.


You know this really isn't a half bad idea. G/O you might not like it, as it would require more work, however it would provide freelance hunters the opportunity to understand who they could contact to purchase hunting. Conversely, it would give enterprising landowner the ability to "advertise" a piece of land they are willing to allow access on. This could be a simple requirement that the land needs to be posted for the dates of access and the listed names of those hunting the property. This really isn't asking that much. The government requires you to keep a record of the hunters using a guide service, and this is a commercial venture. Therefore some appropriate rules regarding the leasees and the land being leased isnt too much to ask. If you have the time to stick your hand out for the $$, it's not too much for the state to ask you to appropriately label the property so there is no confusion. Furthermore, it would also solve the taxation discrepancies if the state were to hand out the "leasing posters" you would use. These posters would have a registration number that you would affix to the guiding forms and/or tax forms to be sent into the state. They could then be cross referenced to determine that appropriate taxes were collected. Then a warden checking the guided hunts could look at the forms, check to ensure that a land leasing number is on the form, and that the numbers/names of those on the hunt match the leasing poster. That would not be too difficult and would only apply to those on guided hunts. G/O as you mentioned this wouldn't be a good solution for the occasional farmer who gets a few bucks in a tip. That would not be the goal of this proposal...



g/o said:


> Liv, Give me a little time and I'll have you agreeing on everthing.  Lets look at Mott or Hettinger county. Outfitters have 43,000 acres in control according to Game and Fish numbers. So how many acres are left in the county? How many people charge all? How much land is non hunting? Now lets look state wide, how many acres are available to hunt PLOTS alone is over 800,000 acres. Maybe Hettinger County its going on, but state wide its very small. Now if want to rent your land for farming there is no law that says I can't. And the first of the year I will give you a 1099 and now we have a paper trail. Now if I give you cash and I send you no 1099 no records. Now if you think all the tax dept. has to worry about is because some farmers didn't report this income which is going be all but impossible to trace dream on. Keep listening I'll convert you yet


In regards to your explanation of Hettinger county (Mott, Regent, New England).... Outfitters do indeed have over 43,000 acres under control. Primarily under 1 outfitter as has been discussed. I lived in that county for a year, and can tell you approx. how much was posted. There are approx. 60,000 acres of super prime hunting land. That would be land where a reasonable person would look for pheasants irrespective of posting. There is probably around another 25,000 acres of good land. That means for sake of an argument that the best 43,000 are under guided control. There is around another 42,000 acres of huntable no leased land, however of that 42,000 acres, approx 30,000 is posted(that is conservative). The residents knowing that they have posted land on prime land, will receive around 2-4 calls per day asking permission, and/or at least 1 group drive up to the farm asking permission. I spoke with one farmer who had over 500 people contact him the 2 months preceding the opener! As soon as word gets out that a particular farmer gives permission, they are flooded with calls. They soon learn it is easier to say no than deal with the annoyance. Others in this sub-group, simply post the land for their family's use.

Consequently what you have is almost zero access unless you have family, long term friendships, or big $$$. Yes there is PLOTS. There was more this year than last. However, those PLOTS are war zones with few numbers of birds after the first weekend. Furthermore, you have MANY groups hunting those FIRST, and "saving" their private access for later when all the birds get pushed into it.

If you were implying that _*only*_ 43,000 acres are leased ..."then what about the rest", you've never been down there before on the weekend during the October pheasant season. All available fields are being pounded, even the poor cover. The remaining acres in the county are cow pastures, horse pastures, open range with no cover, or plowed. There is no in-between.

If we did require state provided receipts for access, we would have a paper trail to follow for the commercial operations. If we required NR's who pay for access to get a receipt with the money, and then require they send in a form to the G and F after the hunt stating county they hunted in, and name(s) of landowners providing fee access, Bruce would have a record trail to follow to determine compliance.

Would it be difficult to do? Possibly. Would it be difficult to enforce? Not if the regulations were created to provide a proper paper trail. Should it happen? Yes.

Will it happen? Unknown. If the resident hunters and the state really want to get their hands around this issue and ensure that *FREE* hunting is a continuing reality, strong regulations and a regulating authority will be needed to accomplish the goal. There are no doubts it will be painful from all sides.......


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Bob, is very diplomatic and has way more patience than I do. If you haven't noticed.

Whoa Bob, Farming is a buisness or is it a way a life. Now your treading on dangerous ground here. Are you a member of NDFB or NDFU? That will dictate your answer, then tell me what is a family farm? I'm not touching either one of those topics here. How far do we have to go here, on this leasing anyway. I think it should be plain and simple if your and outfitter and lease a bunch of land show a copy of the lease no big deal. You and I Bob have discussed several things that will help fine tune things a little. I'll say it now and I'll say it again. Pass a regulation that says farmers can no longer take cash for access, and say good bye to more access.The first thing you will hear is how them sob's from Fargo and Bismarck are telling me what to do on my land again. We need to break this leasing down to see what the problem you guys really have with it.

Liv, if you click the heels of your hunting boots together when saying that,poof your over to the other side. It's really hard to explain all that goes on but I'll try. I as a landowner really do not need a license for what I'm doing. All is done on land I own or is in my farming unit which I rent for ag purposes. So I'm exempt? hardly. Maybe from the Game and fish I am but thats small.

Many,many years ago I got this wild hair up my butt to do this hunting thing. First I called the game and fish and here came the warden with there regulation, which I did not meet. But through the Attorney Generals office I was allowed to as long as its on my property. Next came the volchures with there hands out. First the township sent an appraiser to appraise my lodging facilities. No longer farm excempt. Then came the health Dept. need to inspect and you need this and that and give me a check. Then comes the sales tax people they want there share also. So what I'm telling you Liv, we live in a small community and everyone know everyones buisness. If they think for one minute someone is making some money illegally don't worry you will be turned in. Trust me I know.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

g/o said:


> Ken, I'm all in favour of leased land having both the name of the lessor and lesse on it. Now your day lease proposal is crazy, sorry. You want us to go and post the land in the morning then set out decoys, then post the land again when we leave. Why??? So when guys like Ron drives by he knows who's on the land. Come on Ken your smarter than that, I'd rather be hunting than worried about on whose land anyway.


I am smarter than you think and you aren't understanding what I'm saying.I gave you the example of a day-lease above....

Take your operation....you charge hunters to hunt only on your land.By the day I would guess.So you would post your land with a poster that says...."day lease hunting."...name address,and phone number.

Someone who leases other people's land as a G/O would have signs saying...."leased land.".....name of G/O,address,and phone number.

Make each a specific color......

As I said above I drive by those signs in the SW and it is clear that farmer charges people to hunt by the day.The signs are put up before the season opens and stay up.

I think you are talking about a G/O who pays a farmer to hunt his land just 1 day and then takes the signs down....not what I'm talking about.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Ken, Sorry about the misunderstanding I thought you were refering to the regulation. When you talk day lease to us we refer to that which we are required to do by law. Which is if we lease something for a day we need to report that I'm sure you understand that part.

That being said don't you think that should be up to the individual? Now I let many people hunt on my land for free all they have to do is ask. Now if some jerk comes around with a NoDak Outdoors sticker in his back window he will have to pay big time. (just kidding)     As I said before I have no problem with putting the lesse and lessor on the signs and feel it should be done. Having different color signs etc. Ken come on thats a little over the top. Your not that lazy that you can't get out and walk over to read the signs.


----------



## Lvn2Hnt (Feb 22, 2005)

g/o> valid points I will give you, agree I will not.

Isn't making money a way of life? Dang near anyone could argue that what they do is not a business, it's a way of life. Plain and simple, it is an income - it may not always be the best income, but it is the way of life of doing business. And before I get a bunch of people ripping on me for that comment, my family does farm and that is their main "business" so I am not speaking out of turn. But, what it comes down to is what the law sees it as.

Are you implying that beacuse something is done on _personally owned_ land that it should not/does not require licensing or regulation? If so, that's a whole other subject.

I'm not necessarily proposing a law to prohibit landowners from charging for access.....at this time I'm merely asking that the entire issue be looked at and addressed from a legal sense.



> If they think for one minute someone is making some money illegally don't worry you will be turned in. Trust me I know.


Yes and no....

Ben> Awesome post


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

G/O....actually I have a NoDak sticker on my pickup as well as a tee-shirt and cap.

The colored signs are just a suggestion to make it easier to tell it is some kind of leased land.Any color is OK....at least it would save people the time to track down a landowner and then find out they have to pay to hunt.It is more of a covenience thing.

How's the winter going down there?....We have 6-8 in on the ground right now.....deer out all over the place.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Liv, I know sometimes I do not explain so well. When I started as I said before I did not meet the licensing requirements for and g/o license. I did not have insurance or did I have cpr and first aid. I got an Attorney Generals opinion which stated I would not need a license and that still holds true today. It states if you are operating on your own land or that which is leased for ag purposes it is excempt. So the guy charging an access fee too hunt on his/her land does not need an outfitters license.

Now that does not exclude him from paying tax on lodging,sales and real estate, or income tax. So what I'm telling you is license as far as outfitter goes he does not need one. However if he is lodging people than he needs a sales tax permit,lodging license, and I'm sure his local county will make sure he is now paying commercial tax on said buildings. Everyone is still required to report there income and pay income tax on it. Hope this helps.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Ken, If you would be paying all the permits and crap I'm going through right now. The last thing you would say is we need colored signs. I see your point but in my humble opinion it would never fly.

Very little snow deer and ditch chickens everywhere. If we can stay away from a spring storm we will have another banner year. I talked with some o/g freind in Southern SD they are getting nailed again they are talkin 10 inches


----------



## Lvn2Hnt (Feb 22, 2005)

g/o> I do understand that a private landowner does not need a license in those circumstances....my question is why? That's why I asked for the reasoning behind licensing any G/O in the first place. I'm guessing there are valid reasons for doing so and I'm also guessing that they would apply to a private landowner providing a similar, if not duplicate service.

On a grander scale than just some small time farmer charging a few bucks for people to hunt his land.....let's talk about the guy that leases land, in addition to his own, and "farms" it (to use the term loosely) for the sole purpose of having access to more hunting land for the clients that he houses, drives and guides for....an accurate description of a resident of Sheridan county.

These, under law, are not required to be licesened....my question is why not? Shouldn't those operating as a G/O be held to the same insurance, heath, safety, etc. accountability as those who are required to be licensed?

Actually, I'm guessing you will not agree with me. Does the above description in a way, taking out my nasty undertones directed toward a different target, describe how you are operating, right?


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*g/o wrote*



> The first thing you will hear is how them sob's from Fargo and Bismarck are telling me what to do on my land again. We need to break this leasing down to see what the problem you guys really have with it.


It is pretty simple to me, it is about what the initial post on this thread is about. ACCESS.

I don't expect something for nothing you know that. I have advanced many ideas that were meant to help compensate landowners more appropriately. The "sportsmans tax" was one of them that I feel is quite viable, Increasing license fees slightly is another. Any one of these could be used in conjunction with some form of access permit that the landowner would be able to turn into the game and fish dept for payment.

The funds would have to be set aside and be untouchable by the legislators.

Or the money could be used to offset PLOTS fees or increase PLOTS acreage. Outfitters are going to lease land that is a given, they (most of them) feel the need to do so for the benefit of their business. I have proven in the past that improving habitat on land they own is far more profitable than leasing vast areas of habitat but it was kinda shouted down because it was looked at as a restriction. I still dont see that. Look at the "shooting preserves" in SD. Many of them operate on very small amounts of land that they have planted for the benefit of wildlife. A couple of guys that i know down there are booked full every week and have less that 200 acres. There acreage is all planted in Milo, Millett and short corn. They are making a very good living! believe me! When I visited with Bryan he told me flat out that he has more wild birds than he releases because of the cover and habitat. And he is mandated to release birds by law. He said it took two years before it started to snowball with natural reproduction. They also have very good waterfowl hunting(wild birds) because of the cover and habitat

So I guess I wonder why some outfitters lease the thousands of acres that they do. Is it all take and very little give back? I know your operation is not like that but some in your area fit the description.

Hunting without access is called driving around to see the countryside! Access is there for the asking in many many areas, can it be improved for r and nr freelance hunters sure it can! and there are ways to help compensate for better access, just like many outfitters can improve their operation as mentioned above

I am not advocating a hunting operation on every corner like SD many residents down there are fighting for their access because outfitting has locked out all but the pay to play crowd or those with connections. ND is already starting to go that direction in some aspect but there is ample room for all if a combination of factors stated above could be agreed upon and worked out.

Just my two cents worth.

Bob


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Lvn2Hnt said:


> Ben> Awesome post


Thanks Lvn ... I always try being diplomatic... not sure if my message comes across the screen the way I'd like it to... words have no inflection making posting to forums an inexact science. 

Ryan


----------



## Lvn2Hnt (Feb 22, 2005)

Ben> from what I've read and in my opinion, you are coming off as intended.

g/o> thank you for the pm, we're much more on the same page than I had figured. :beer:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> We've gone from 402 guides to 223 o/g in 2 years, and it will be down some more this year.


Definations of guides and outfitters have changed in the last 15 years, but......

In 1990 there were 82 est. "hunting guides" with around 5000 acres controled.

In 2003 there were 402 est. with a reported 560,000 acres leased, (apx 1400 acres per).

In 2005 there 223 est outfitters with a reported 523,000 leased, (apx 2350 acres per).

It doesn't matter if the outfitter number drops as long as they continue to increase controled acres. This was the very scenario with commercialized hunting in other states and it appears to be playing out here also.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Dick, I got to hand it to you. Your one of the most dedicated people I've come to know. Problem is you keep me damn busy here correcting you. You have a real knack of spreading half truths and that is meant as a compliment. Dick as you are well aware the facts are we never had to report our acres until after last session. You are correct a lot has changed in 15 years and for the better I'm sure you'll agree. More still needs to be done. But again we are talking about what is reported which is fact and what before was an estimate. Kind of like the millions your still looking for. :lol:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> You have a real knack of spreading half truths


 Learned that from outfitters. :wink:

Sure reporting and licensing have gotten better, they were forced into it by law. And should have been a long time ago. ND is just 20 years behind with the problem and the solution

Borrowed from dosch: http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/vie ... hp?t=22439


----------

