# Should ND use it's outdoor resources to attract more Res.



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

I ask this question because as stated in numerous posts that Resident hunters spend more money in a given year on outdoor related expenses than Non-Resident hunters.

Looking forward, even though now is the fork in the road, would it be more advantagous for North Dakota to give more emphasis on attracting and retaining young and older people to North Dakota by incentivizing our natural resources to residents?

If we continue to lose access to large leases how will this affect the over-all economy in the long run comapred to controlling theNR demand for these services through some mechanism?

Can we improve our economy by reducing the numbers of NR hunters and encouraging residents to hunt by providing more acces through public land initiatives such as an expanded PLOTS program?

I think that this resource is allot stronger than most think and if approached as a resource not just for generating dollars through license fees, but also as a source for tax dollars from income and from consumption it is a very powerful tool.

But could it be done? Should it be done?

I would like to hear both positives and negatives...........and I am sure I will get allot of both..I hope.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

I like the idea. It is, however, one of the things some of us have been trying to do for some time now. As Dan said on another thread, we have not done a very good job of getting the message across to the Legislators.

What would be the program, incentives, plans etc that you would propose, we already have arguably the best hunting in the lower 48, the cheapest housing, the lowest crime rate, the cleanest air, and on and on. What enhancement of ND outdoors would be the switch that would flip to make the difference between living here and living elsewhere?

The other question would be weather there would be enough people that would buy into it to make the required economic impact.

Bob


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

But do people realize that? I think a better question is how do you place a system that promotes free lance hunting through access and stops access control issues.

How have states that have natural resources similar to ours successfully used them as an attractant for residents?

How have they failed to use them?


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

This is an area I have tried to talk with legislators about, but it seems they just keep looking past it.

My point to them included that fact that almost all of our hunter eduation classes across ND are almost full each and everytime we have one. There are waiting lists in our larger towns like Grand Forks and Fargo. To me, that tells me that there is specific interest in it at a young age.

Research shows that youth must have some sort of identity to our natural resources by the time they reach 13 or they will never see the benefits or use of it. So if we don't work with youth involving them in the outdoors at a young age and show them the benefits, the percentage of them leaving the state increases dramatically.

I give big cudo's to those volunteers that help with Eco-Ed camps, Enviro-thon, hunter education classes, gun/sportsmen's club youth activity days, and anything else that helps expose youth to our outdoors.

Just from shear numbers in hunter's education alone should be a good start, but when you take those kids out hunting and you show up to the landowner's yard and he says, "$200 a gun", it is quite disturbing and dissapointing. At that point, do these youth feel like they don't owe ND anything anymore????

Our youth are some of our greatest entrepeneurs (sp?) and although some in this state disagree, hunting and ND's other recreational resources ARE attractions and we are missing the boat by not increasing the amount of access for R sportsmen.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

The one problem with it is....you would have to raise the cost of the habitat stamp considerably for residents to make up the difference in lost revenue from NR.Especially since the ones that buy the zone buster license I believe pay $55 of their cost directly to PLOTS.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Some of our surrounding states allow their residents to purchase preference points for big game

A few years ago Wyoming had a thing Called an access tag. If you harvested your game the land owner was paid from a fund by the Game and Fish.

In Alberta Canada (BTW I like this one) they do the following.

WILDLIFE ACT of Alberta

http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/Documents/acts/W10.CFM

1984 cW-9.1 s48;1996 c33 s34 
Disposition of access to land 
49(1) No person shall directly or indirectly buy or sell, trade or barter or offer to buy or sell access to any land for the purpose of hunting any big game or any fur-bearing animals on any land. 
(2) No person shall directly or indirectly buy or sell, trade or barter or offer to buy or sell access to any land for the purpose of hunting any game bird except as provided in subsection (3). 
(3) No person shall directly or indirectly buy or sell, trade or barter or offer to buy or sell access to any land for the purpose of hunting upland game birds 
(a) on privately owned land unless the person holds a licence issued to the person for that purpose pursuant to this Act and except in accordance with the regulations, or 
(b) on public land that is not privately owned land.

......................................................................................................

SD limits waterfowl hunters and has a NR lottery.

Minnesota restricts NR from hunting and fishing certain species. (Spearing Fish and Moose)

This is all just off the stuff I know about.

Bob


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

inititally you would ahve a short fall in dollars from the licenses...but in the long run you would pay many times over the lost license fees in tax revenue from income, sales, property and many other sources that would also be more evenly distributed than would the license fees.

Economics tell you that this is a long term investment in North Dakota...where allowing the commerialization..privately.. of access to ND's natural resources is a short term solution to the problem.

I ask this.....What is North Dakota going to be like when access is so tight that you ahve to as a resident get a G/O to hunt land?

How far are we away from that?

The trouble is that in order to control access to natural resources you are going to need to do jsut that, control the majority of the land. Now that is either through permitted access or depleting scarcity of access. Not sure which one would work the best.

Would allot of people move to Colorado or Wyoming(etc.) if the only way to shoot an elk was to be a resident?


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

> Would allot of people move to Colorado or Wyoming(etc.) if the only way to shoot an elk was to be a resident?


I think there would be a few, it would definately increase the number of hunters in states that allow unlimited NR hunting. Similar to the situation between ND and SD waterfowl hunting.

Speaking for myself, No I would Not. I like elk meat, not enough to change residency though.

Bob


----------



## fishless (Aug 2, 2005)

Anything that can be done to attract and keep ND res. is a good idea and should be pursued. ND outdoor resources are a great asset to the state, but like anything else are not unlimited and should be managed with the states res in mind first.


----------



## gaddyshooter (Oct 12, 2003)

From the outside looking in........I believe that as long as ND allows unlimited numbers of non residents to come in and hunt, it will be hard to attract people to actually move there. Best waterfowl hunting in the lower 48 IMO, but is that enough to make people pack up and move north? I don't believe so. There are a lot of other things in ND's favor as you say. Low crime rates, low property prices, low taxes, etc, make it a very attractive place to live. One of the things hurting it unfortunately is the long cold winters. My wife and I seriously talked about moving to Minot area a couple of years ago, and one of the things that was the deciding factor was the winters. (more for my wife) Also one of the things that makes ND so attractive for me, is the lack of population. Not to great for economics, but that is one of the best things you have going up there. Has to be some kind of balance somewhere, but if you have too many people move up there, it will become like what the rest of us have to put up with with overcrowding, crime, etc.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

I know that some people will disagree but I think that what we have right now is working very well. The NDGF has a zone system in place for NR waterfowl hunters, a 14 day season for NR upland game hunters, a truly great program called the PLOTS and unlimited hunting opportunities for resident hunters and reasonable numbers of outfitters dispersed throughout the state and at the same time they have preserved the right of individual landowners to do whatever they want with the land that is theirs. Life is good on the Prarie Ghetto! Seems to me like things are working well at a time when waterfowl, deer and upland game hunting are about as good as it can get. Sometime in the near future mother nature and the federal government are going to have their say in wildlife numbers due to the laws of nature and the CRP program and then some will refer to this time as the good old days. Those that invest in the markets or hunt ruffed grouse know exactly what I am talking about. It is a natural cycle. And right now the good times are rolling so enjoy the resource for what it is and not for what you think it should be for your own selfish reasons. We have a little for everyone so if you put in the effort you have plenty of opportunities to enjoy the great outdoors.


----------

