# Today's Forum (Dec. 3)



## rap

Hunting for land
By Steven P. Wagner, The Forum
Published Sunday, December 03, 2006

First of two parts

- Today: Sportsmen buying land for hunting rights

- Monday: Hunting means dollars for North Dakota

Regent, N.D. - Gary Stang doesn't mince words when talking about resident hunters. The second-generation farm owner southwest of here would rather see nonresident pheasant hunters on his land for one reason:

"I've got hard feelings with the North Dakota hunters," said Stang, who runs Good Life Hunting Co. from his farmstead. "They don't think they have to pay for anything.

"Everybody in North Dakota thinks we owe them something."

More sportsmen, driven by farmers charging for access to their land, are buying land in North Dakota's best pheasant areas. It's a practice that's changing the state's hunting culture and prompting local bidding wars between farmers and sportsmen.

Duane Olson, Hettinger County tax director for nearly 34 years, noticed the trend in 2002 and began tracking land sales to hunters. A review of land sales in Hettinger, Emmons, McIntosh and other counties show the trend of more sales and higher prices spreading to other popular hunting destinations.

In 2005, a record number of pheasant hunters - 92,801 - took to North Dakota fields. Before this fall, the state's outlook predicted another heavy hunting season.

"There's a lot of friction between farmers come hunting season," said Stang, 62. "It's just greed. They all think I'm making all kinds of money.

"Everybody is getting into this business," he said. "Everybody wants a piece of the pie."

Hettinger County, in southwestern North Dakota, ranked as the state's most popular pheasant hunting destination for nonresidents and the third most popular for residents in 2005.

A recent study by Steve Shultz, a former associate professor in agribusiness and applied economics at North Dakota State University, showed urban North Dakotans made 34 percent of the hunting land purchases from 2000 to 2004. Minnesotans accounted for another 30 percent of the sales.

But Shultz, now director of the Real Estate Research Center at the University of Nebraska-Omaha, concluded non-local hunters weren't driving up prices for farmers competing for the land.

It's a conclusion Hettinger County's tax director disagrees with.

"In our county, the land being purchased for recreation is being purchased for two to three times higher than it should be and has raised the price of ag land $100 to $200 an acre," said Olson, the Hettinger County tax director.

The numbers from Hettinger County sales show:

- Hunters bought three parcels of land, totaling 944 acres, in 2002 and paid an average price of $535 per acre.

- In 2003 and 2004, there were 17 land sales to hunters each year.

- Land sold for an average of $658 per acre in 13 hunting-related sales during 2005 - a 23 percent increase compared to 2002. Through August of this year, Olson said sportsmen made six land purchases at an average of $663 an acre.

By contrast, farmers buying agricultural land paid an average of $308 per acre in 2002. The sales price jumped to nearly $564 per acre in 2005.

"If you were a farmer and looking at expanding, it would keep you out of purchasing (land)," Olson said. "The most controversial thing I hear is farmers think it's unfair to pay the same tax dollar as somebody who buys rec land."

Lauren Hunze, 61, recalls days as a teen when he and his father drove country roads after Sunday church services to hunt pheasants.

"I don't hunt as much as I used to," said Hunze, McLean County's tax director. "Why? It is harder to get on land.

"Unfortunately, the days of a father and sons and daughters walking a few acres and killing a few birds are over."

For decades, sportsmen in North Dakota didn't need permission from landowners to hunt private ranches and farms. Now far more landowners post "No Hunting" signs on their property to restrict or monitor access.

The dynamics of land access and fee hunting are making it more difficult for sportsmen to enjoy hunting and pass traditions on to young North Dakotans, Hunze said.

"So many families today just can't afford the sport," he said. "They can't afford to buy their way onto the land. It's become a rich man's sport."

He attributes some of the problem to nonresidents, either buying land or paying landowners to hunt, but he doesn't blame farmers and ranchers.

"It's their prerogative," Hunze said. "It's changed the face of what hunting is&#8230; Things are changing. Like it or not, that's the way it is."

In southwest North Dakota, Bowman County Tax Director Dean Pearson said land prices are being driven by oil speculators and sportsmen alike.

Landowners post their property to force sportsmen to pay for hunting rights, he said.

"The locals can't afford to hunt," Pearson said. "The kids and others who hunted for years and years have to get out the checkbook."

A 2002 North Dakota Game and Fish Department survey, conducted by Fargo's Winkelman Consulting, studied trends, perceptions and attitudes about hunting in the state.

Responses showed more landowners posted their property and restricted access to more land than in previous years:

- Statewide, 69 percent of landowners posted their property in 2001. Topping the list was the Dickinson region, where 96 percent of landowners restricted access. Two other regions, Fargo and Bismarck, recorded higher averages than the rest of the state, with 72 percent and 71 percent, respectively, posting their property.

- 91 percent of landowners between the ages of 25 and 34 posted their land.

- 83 percent of landowners with property in the state's most popular pheasant counties posted land, a jump from 67 percent in 1996.

Those figures mirror perceptions by hunters, both resident and nonresident, about the amount of land posted in North Dakota.

Among residents, 76 percent of hunters said more land was posted in 2001 compared to 1996. Seventy percent of nonresident hunters shared that view.

Those perceptions don't match landowners' habits. About one-third of landowners, 34 percent, said they've increased the amount of posted property. In two earlier surveys, landowners also reported posting more land than before.

Jay Leitch, professor of Natural Resources Management at NDSU, has studied hunting issues in North Dakota for years and published several papers on the topic.

"The culture among North Dakota hunters is there's free and open access," Leitch said. "It's not as free and open as it once was."

Blaze orange signs hanging from fence posts on Stang's property warn trespassing hunters to stay off his land. It's a common scene throughout southwest North Dakota.

During the three-month pheasant hunting season, which ends Jan. 7, Stang said he routinely chases violators off of the 460 acres he owns.

"This time of year, we have all kinds of company," said Stang, who charges hunters $150 each day to shoot pheasants on his land. "Other than that, no one knows me."

Inside a small hunting lodge, Stang keeps a picture album of every group that's paid to hunt there since 1993.

Three years earlier, Stang began raising pheasants and eventually released 7,000 birds in the area. He credits the region's pheasant boon to the release.

He continues to put feed out - spending $5,000 to $6,000 each year - to keep the pheasant population healthy. Stang said he earns about $40,000 a year through the business.

His livelihood relies on charging hunters for access fee hunting, but the 2002 Winkelman survey showed most hunters and landowners don't share Stang's attitude on fee hunting.

The survey showed 63 percent of residents, 55 percent of landowners and 53 percent of nonresidents oppose fee hunting.

Arlen Harmoning, wildlife planner for the Game and Fish Department, said the study prompted new goals for a program known as PLOTS, or Private Land Open To Sportsmen.

The program offers three different cash incentives to landowners - most receive $1 to $4 per acre in addition to federal conservation dollars - in return for giving access to hunters. This fall, about 850,000 acres across the state were enrolled in the program and officials hope to reach 1 million acres by 2009.

"The state wants to be about economic development, but we don't want to commercialize hunting so it's a rich man's sport," Harmoning said.

Competing interests make the debate harder, not easier, in finding a middle ground, he said.

"We want to provide the most opportunities to residents who live here year-round, but we can't exclude nonresidents," Harmoning said. "We say North Dakota is one of the last best places. We have some of the most abundant resources here.

"Residents view it as nonresidents taking something away."

In Shultz's study, the former NDSU professor looked at 424 land sales in North Dakota from 2000 to 2004 to compare trends in the southwest, which offers some of North Dakota's highest pheasant populations, to the rest of the state.

He found one quarter of the sales, 106, was land purchased by non-local buyers who mostly leased it back to local producers and post "No Hunting" signs to keep out other sportsmen.

His research concluded that hunters weren't paying premium prices for land compared to other buyers, and recent surges in sales prices couldn't be attributed to non-local hunters.

Olson, the Hettinger County tax director, said the 56 hunting-related purchases there since 2002 proves otherwise.

"You can use figures any way you want, but you have to know the quality of the land," Olson said.

Along the border with South Dakota, three popular pheasant hunting counties see similar trends to Hettinger County in southwestern North Dakota.

People are buying property in Dickey County for the hunting rights and then reselling the land, said Jeff Langley, tax director in Dickey County.

"We're seeing out-of-state hunters buying some land here," said Langley, who's been tax director for two years. "We're also seeing hunter rights become an issue.

"It's becoming a market."

In Emmons County, where there have been 28 hunting land purchases since 2002, tax director Ardella Deis said she's not surprised to see more sportsmen buying land in south central North Dakota.

The price for hunting land sales jumped from $263 per acre in 2002 to $637 per acre in 2005 - a 242 percent increase. Through August of this year, sales prices have dipped to $574 per acre.

Neighboring McIntosh County, with 31 hunting land sales since 2002, has seen a similar trend. The average sales price for hunting land purchases was $239 per acre in 2002.

This year, average prices have peaked to $447 per acre, a 188 percent increase from five years ago.

Deis sees the issue from both perspectives. Her family farms but also allows friends - both non-local residents and nonresidents - on their land to hunt.

"As a farmer, I don't like the idea of the hunter coming in and raising the land prices," Deis said. "There are so many young farmers who want land."

But sportsmen pump much-needed money into the state's economy - spending $191 million in North Dakota for lodging, food, supplies and other expenses to hunt in 2005.

"The tax director in me says that these hunters come around here and help the community," Deis said. "A lot of these hunters are nice, easygoing people."

David Crane, a Mott lawyer who has handled paperwork for hunters buying land between $500 and $750 per acre, expects to see more sales to hunters.

"It looks like the bubble hasn't burst," he said. "People are still paying outrageous prices."

At one time, anyone buying land for those prices was seen as throwing their money away, Crane said.

"Now it seems we start at $500 (per acre)," he said. "A lot of farmers are praying for big blizzards to kill them (pheasants) all."

The hunter-turned-buyer trend hasn't been all bad, he said, but it sets up competing interests.

"If you want to get farm ground, you are competing with hunters," Crane said. "If you're an operator, they are a curse. If you own land and you want to sell, it's a boon."

Larry Leistritz, an NDSU professor, and Dan Nudell, an agricultural economist with the university's Hettinger Research Extension Center, are looking at land sales after receiving a federal grant.

Nudell said it appears non-local buyers are buying more land in North Dakota and he wants to learn their motivation. The study, which may not be complete for two years, looks at Bowman and Billings counties in North Dakota and four counties in Montana, South Dakota and Wyoming.

"I haven't tied it down to hunting, but that's my suspicion," Nudell said. "I think it's even more prevalent than you and I know."

A preliminary look at data from Adams County, in far southwestern North Dakota, shows non-local buyers paid about $350 per acre compared to $212 per acre paid by local buyers in 2002 and 2003, Nudell said.

In central North Dakota, Burleigh County ranked as the resident pheasant hunters' second-most popular destination in 2005. The county's auditor/treasurer, Kevin Glatt, doesn't expect nonresident hunters will stop buying land anytime soon.

"These guys are coming in and it's not just for hunting; it's an investment," Glatt said.

Like Langley in Dickey County, Glatt said he can't quantify the impact non-local sales have had in Burleigh County. He also said there's no reason to track the sales.

"We are still going to value the land based on productivity of the land," Glatt said. "The final outcome isn't going to change the way we value the land."

He suspects more sales in southwest North Dakota because of the region's reputation as a pheasant haven. Through all the debate, Glatt sees a delicate balance between economic boon and doom.

"What happens if we have a really, really bad winter?" Glatt said. "No one's going to be going out there."

But as long as the state's pheasant population thrives, he expects more hunters to buy land across North Dakota.

"Look at Montana," Glatt said. "It's wide-open spaces. We're next.

"There's going to be an explosion. It's the last frontier. We're the best-kept secret."

Readers can reach Forum reporter Steven P. Wagner at (701) 241-5542


----------



## indsport

It is interesting to note that research is finally verifying what we resident hunters have been saying for some time regarding land access and land acquisition. I was amused by Duane Olson's comment " noticed the trend in 2002 and began tracking land sales to hunters." I recall sending an email to Hettinger county back in 1994 about land sales and posting and getting responses that "land access and land sales were not a problem and shouldn't be a problem in the future." As of 1998 or so, I stopped going to Hettinger county to hunt.

But a more important concern is for the future of hunting. "The dynamics of land access and fee hunting are making it more difficult for sportsmen to enjoy hunting and pass traditions on to young North Dakotans, Hunze said."So many families today just can't afford the sport," he said. "They can't afford to buy their way onto the land. It's become a rich man's sport." 
This is part of the bigger problem, namely recruitment of young hunters into the sport. I fear the increasing restrictions on access (or the ability to pay), will only accelerate the decline in hunter numbers. Additionally, what does this say to the youth of North Dakota? One of the best things about North Dakota we used to have going to retain youth in our state or bring former residents back to the state is the hunting and fishing. Without the access or the ability to pay for access, this makes the problem worse. State policies that promote hunting as a recruitment and retention tool, while at the same time promoting the economic development of hunting that further limits access are opposing each other and work at cross purposes.


----------



## boondocks

rap said:


> "I've got hard feelings with the North Dakota hunters," said Stang, who runs Good Life Hunting Co. from his farmstead. "They don't think they have to pay for anything.
> 
> "Everybody in North Dakota thinks we owe them something."
> 
> "There's a lot of friction between farmers come hunting season," said Stang, 62. "It's just greed. They all think I'm making all kinds of money.


Is this guy for real. uke: :withstupid: I think this Stang feller has a screw loose, maybe two. Obviously he thinks ND hunters owe HIM something. Like I said before landowners like this are a bigger threat to hunting than PETA. uke:


----------



## Dick Monson

> State policies that promote hunting as a recruitment and retention tool, while at the same time promoting the economic development of hunting that further limits access are opposing each other and work at cross purposes.


Exactly.

The legislature prohibits aliens from purchasing ag land.
The legislature prohibits OOS corporations from buying ag land.
The legislature severly restricts non-profits from purchasing ag land.
The legislature severly restricts USFW from purchasing ag land.
The legislature severly restricts NDGF from purchasing ag land.

The legislature *encourages and facilates NR ag land purchases* by guarenteeing an unlimited number of hunting licenses; extended the NR upland from 10 to 14 days, gutting zone requirements, and offering a zone buster NR license for the highest bidders.

The legislature needs to get both their feet on the same side of the fence.


----------



## g/o

Geeze Dick we disagree again 

Unlike you I like the way things are. I find no reason aliens should be owning ag land in ND. I don't see any reason for out of state corporations from owning farm land either. Why shouldn't we study and restrict sales of land to Non profit groups,USFW,NDGF ? One thing to remember this land being sold to these non residents someday will be for sale again. Sell it to the USFWS and it never will.


----------



## smalls

rap said:


> At one time, anyone buying land for those prices was seen as throwing their money away, Crane said.
> 
> "Now it seems we start at $500 (per acre)," he said. "A lot of farmers are praying for big blizzards to kill them (pheasants) all."


What?! But I thought that the slowing of the Mott economy was solely to blame on NDGF?


----------



## Dick Monson

And where are the so called farm organizations on this issue? Invisable? Like it doesn't affect their members? Deaf and dumb? Rural legislators?How about the sale of "hunting rights" seperate from the land? Their arguements against selling conservation easements are identical to the arguement against selling hunting rights. Doubtfull the farm orgainzations will jump up and down on this either.

G/O, here I thought you favored tourism, now you're against it? Nothing attracts outdoor tourism like public access, ie: NDGF, USFW, and park service ownership. Pay the property tax with a motel surcharge. ND has the least public land of surrounding states. NR hunter-landowners won't open their doors to access. 9 out of 10 want their private preserve. Meanwhile the cash rent, conservation payments, and appreciation continue to flow out-of-state. Commericalizers don't care because they take their cut off the top.


----------



## Plainsman

> ND has the least public land of surrounding states.


If I remember correctly North Dakota has the least public land of any other state in this nation. Including those easter small states with public forrests. Still we hear some complain about all the public land. I wish North Dakota had ten times the public land we have now.


----------



## Invector

I know a ton of farmers out there. Some of them had their land leased up by an out fitter. Those areas good luck getting on the land. Other areas good luck seeing any game on it. But the farmers in that area now only let pay hunting on their land. So much per gun and you can have your day out there. A simple person who cannot afford it or wont pay it is stuck watching or going some place else. I have a few that I know who still let me go out on their land if no one else is around. This is nice for me since they tell me if the birds are there and if I am going to be the only one hunting that area. Now why oh why would the farmers want to only let people out there that have $$$$. Hm...oh ya I know it is because of the $$$. Now I do not know many people from this state that actually use one of the local out fitters when they hunt. I have seen a few guys from the Fargo area but most are NR (not to pick on them sorry if I offend anyone). It is the simple fact of the mighty $$$ that drives them to it. Now if you remember the 70's there was a big push to limit the NR coming to the state. At that time they had control over most of the land that the birds stopped at. Things have gotten way too easy again and I fear that something of the same sort will happen again thanks to thinking from guys like the one who wrote that article. It makes me sad to see that the mentality of some people goes just so far.

If any of you have been looking over the deer forums you might have come past what happened to us this year on the opening day of deer season. For those of you who have not, we spent most of the day chasing people off what part of our land we do have posted. The other factor is we had people driving though our CRP land that had no trail on it just so they could get down to a lake that boarders our stuff. The person who does own the lake allows fee hunting on his land, but since he had standing corn on his side of the lake there was no one who could get to the lake so they broke the law and drove though our CRP to get to it. It is signs like these that some people have gotten far away from respecting the land and other people and now only respect the mighty $$$.

As far as open public land goes, it was not until I was in Colorado for a few years that I actually found out what things like BLM was. Most of the mountain areas around the area I was at were under the control of the BLM. As far as I knew it was open to anyone who wanted to utilize the land. We don't have that here in ND to much of an extent. We need the local farmers to realize what might happen if thoughts like these continue or spread. Now you might be thinking "well heII you closed down your land" and that is true. We did close down our land. We did it though to give us an area to use, keep the farm protected, and to limit people driving though on roads that have just been reclaimed due to the flood in the late '90s, roads that are nothing more then simple paths. The other thing is we only posted a few areas. Those areas being the better land to hunt on yes but we did not post the land that made no sense to post. We did let people on a limited basis hunt ducks on the one slough but they were few and far between who actually came and asked. Down in this area we have a couple of guys who bring people in from other area to hunt. They get the land owners down there to let their people come on the land for free...the land owner gets no $ but the guide still gets his big $ per gun. We know that we had one of these guys sneak a bunch of his guys on to our posted land after we told him NO.

This might sound like a bunch of complaining to you but I want you guys and gals who might read this to think about what might be coming. It has been stated before that things could change to the fact or permission only hunting like in SD or other trespassing laws that would cripple our ability to hunt. From the attitude from the guy who wrote the article he is against open hunting...it is thoughts like these that could and can turn resident hunters away from hunting all together. The writing is on the wall that something big could happen so lets try and stop it before it starts.


----------



## g/o

Dick,Dick,Dick, Of course I favour tourism I also favour PLOTS or did you forget about that ? Now to compare us with our neighboring states on public land is kind of dumb being we have little forest land here. Compare us with other Ag states IA,IL,IN,NE and we are way ahead of them. Now toss in the million acres of PLOTS and we shoot ahead of SD. Dick the people in hospitality care all you have to do is ask them. So why don't you do a community PLOTS? That's a good way for them to show they care, oh that's right someone has to approach them and that's work. The majority wants everything for nothing and that's not the way the real world works is it.

Plainsman we rank 39


----------



## Bob Kellam

g/o

Questions: how many tax dollars go to help keep these landowners in business?

How much land do they own that is paid for in part by taxes via subsidies?

How much of the land being used by pay hunting operations is CRP?

Bob


----------



## ND decoy

Over all I thought it was a pretty good article. Pretty acruate on the whole.

I looked at it from 2 points of view as a landowner and as a sportmen, First of all would somebody get Mr.Stang a tissue so he can dab his eyes. I get the feeling that he thinks all the birds are his. And every body owes him some thing. MONEY. He is probably mad at his neighbors that don't post there land. Can't have some body giving it away for free.


----------



## drhunter

On the issue of $$$, I used to think the $150 people were paying in the SW corner was alot. This fall when we were back we heard $275! Recruiting young hunters to the sport is going to be pretty tough when there aren't going to be any old hunters left that can afford it.

Make hay while the sun shines, because we will have a bad winter and the birds will die and the people will stay home.


----------



## g/o

Bob Kellam said:


> g/o
> 
> Questions: how many tax dollars go to help keep these landowners in business?
> 
> How much land do they own that is paid for in part by taxes via subsidies?
> 
> How much of the land being used by pay hunting operations is CRP?
> 
> Bob


Come on Bob I'm surprised with this response from you. Sure we farmers receive tax dollars, sure we receive subsidies. How many dollars does the City of Fargo receive which I don't get to use? If your going to use this argument then shouldn't non residents have just of much of right as you do? We are talking federal monies here aren't we. Lets not even go there Bob, keep things civil.


----------



## R y a n

g/o said:


> Bob Kellam said:
> 
> 
> 
> g/o
> 
> Questions: how many tax dollars go to help keep these landowners in business?
> 
> How much land do they own that is paid for in part by taxes via subsidies?
> 
> How much of the land being used by pay hunting operations is CRP?
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
> 
> Come on Bob I'm surprised with this response from you. Sure we farmers receive tax dollars, sure we receive subsidies. How many dollars does the City of Fargo receive which I don't get to use? If your going to use this argument then shouldn't non residents have just of much of right as you do? We are talking federal monies here aren't we. Lets not even go there Bob, keep things civil.
Click to expand...

The difference G/O is that the City of Fargo is a *PUBLIC* entity, whereby the tax dollars are invested for the general use and good of the public. YOUR federal subsidies go to YOUR *private* interest.

I don't receive any extra federal subsidies (other than the PUBLIC benefits I receive thru my tax dollars)... why should you? The answer is you shouldn't, lest you provide an additional free public benefit in lieu of those additional dollar$.

The amount of extra income _you_ derive from a public source FAR exceeds any return _I_ see from my tax inputs!

See the difference?

Just remember that you also receive far more money than you put into the coffers when you drive on the nice public Interstate roads to and from farm to market...

As I've said many times before... It is my opinion that if you are receiving federal subsidy payments (CRP payments), there should be a stipulation that you cannot receive any additional form of commercial payment for your land, and that in effect your land is being fully set aside for open use by the general public (with the sole exception being land around your homestead quarter). Additionally, under no circumstances can you hay or plow that CRP, unless you refund your CRP payment back to the government for that portion of land you break contract with.

THEN we would see who truly is a conservationist, and who likes double/triple dipping on the public dole.

(btw.... do you really believe that non-hunting John Q. Public realizes the extent of the extra tax dollars you receive? If a national news story was released showing how many farmers are finding ways of double/triple dipping on the federal tax dole, the average (majority) of Americans would be in an uproar, and your precious CRP rules would be drastically modified. Fortunately for you the vast majority of the American public are ignorant fools and they don't comprehend the complex intricate subtleties of the law, and any explanation would go right over their heads.)

Ryan

.


----------



## Bob Kellam

g/o

The questions were asked in a civil manner. You know my position on NR hunters very well, right?

Make no mistake, these articles are not being printed in every newspaper in ND by happenstance. With the legislative session only a matter of weeks away it will be interesting to see what issues will arise from the media blitz.

The status and issues of hunting in ND is changing. Convince me that it is changing for the better when a Dad and his kids cannot afford to enjoy the experience.

Take a Dad and three kids at $150.00 per gun per day, $1800.00 for just access not to mention the "other" expenses involved. You and I both know a lot of people that can not afford that. So convince me that we should make it a sport just for the people that can afford it when the wildlife is supposed to be a public trust.

Bob


----------



## g/o

Sorry guys I don't have much time I'll be out of town today.

Ryan, Ever heard of base acres? These are what your payments are based on. I had every acre of my farm base acres and gave them up when I enrolled in CRP. When my land comes which some will in 3 years because I choose not to. I will no base acres no welfare payments on that land. You don't like subsidies ? I don't either but its there why should I not take advantage of it? You don't like me making money of my lodging to bad. You want to hunt my land fine as I always say. Pay for all my expenses on that property and you can have it to hunt. Ryan you left ND for a better life which I do not blame you. I chose to stay I decided to stay, like you say not much of an opportunity in this state is there? I could see a way to make a living doing what I'm doing and I'm enjoying it. Go ahead and get the people to view what I'm doing. I've been on tv so many times I can't count and not once has anyone ever called and complained about what I'm doing.

Bob,
And the Forum endorsing a ban on high fence hunting is not? How many are charging $150.00 a day for just a place to hunt? You know as well as I do it usually includes lodging, or guides etc etc. You concerned about kids? Want to join me on a bill to get rid of the reciprocity bs and raise it to 18?


----------



## dosch

Check out Gary Stangs welfare program. I bet g/o's gets even more. What a bunch of scumbags!!

http://www.ewg.org:16080/farm/persondet ... =007593225


----------



## Centerfire

Increased land prices are the result of : 
ND Game & Fish promoting NR for the purpose of increasing revenue
Unlimited Guide/Outfitter licenses + G/O's paying for lease rights

Reduce the above and reduce the outside pressure - If it isn't already too late


----------



## Dick Monson

Post up the second article of the series.


----------



## Bob Kellam

More pheasants, more money
By Steven P. Wagner, The Forum
Published Monday, December 04, 2006

Second of two parts

- Sunday: Sportsmen buying land for hunting rights

- Today: North Dakota communities benefit from hunting

LINTON, N.D. - Shirley Grenz reopened the Starlite Bar and Restaurant here last spring knowing pheasant hunters flock to the region in pursuit of the prized game bird.

Shirley Grenz 
RELATED CONTENT 
Graphic: High times 
Part one: Hunting for land 
That hasn't always been the case.

Nearly four decades ago, severe winters nearly wiped out pheasants in North Dakota. A series of mild winters, along with other factors, have since helped revive the highly sought bird to near historic highs.

As the pheasants' resurgence attracts sportsmen to North Dakota from across the country, business owners like Grenz and rural communities stand to prosper.

From east to west, North Dakota's rural towns rely on hunters - upland game, waterfowl and big game sportsmen - to bolster profits and keep them in business the remainder of the year.

More and more hunters are taking to the fields of North Dakota - the state issued a record number of licenses in 2005 - and spending more than ever.

Last year, the state's Game and Fish Department issued 566,714 licenses in 36 separate categories, including new highs for 13 types of licenses. Hunting activities generated nearly $420 million in direct and secondary spending for the year.

"Hunting opportunities based on the number of licenses and having something to hunt when you get out there have arguably never been better," said Larry Leistritz, a North Dakota State University professor for agribusiness and applied economics. "It should be seen as a great opportunity for residents and nonresidents.

"These are the good old days."

The economic impact factors in spending for lodging, food, supplies and other related expenses, but doesn't include license fees.

Just before North Dakota's pheasant opener Oct. 14, Grenz heard the first tidbit that showed she might just cash in on the hunting bonanza.

A group of Wisconsin hunters called a local motel to see if the Starlite had reopened. It had after 17 months - news prompting the group to book reservations and cancel a trip to South Dakota.

Ask Grenz what pheasant hunting means to her business and you'll get a big smile.

"Busy," she said. "A lot of old customers are coming back.

"This is the time of the year you make most of your money, unless there is construction," said the 59-year-old. "It's like that all over the city&#8230; It brings money into every business that is here."

A record 92,801 pheasant hunters walked tree rows, creek bottoms and sloughs last year in North Dakota - where the economic impact can be seen in the small towns, airports, car rental dealerships and sporting goods stores.

The activity plays an important role in ranking tourism as the state's second largest industry.

"During October and November, it seems like everybody is wearing brush pants and bringing guns," said Matthew Remynse, manager at the Dickinson Theodore Roosevelt Regional Airport. "Our hangars are always full, but they are even more full during hunting."

He said up to half of commercial passengers during hunting season are sportsmen. Three of every four non-commercial flights are shuttling hunters to the state.

"For these smaller towns, it's the biggest time of the year," he said. "It brings a diverse group of people here."

Terri Thiel, executive director of the Dickinson Visitor and Convention Bureau, said hunters' economic impact on the entire region can't be overstated.

"These people are bringing in real dollars," said Thiel, who added that many business and property owners rely on the extra money to make ends meet. "Those few months (of pheasant hunting) will tide people over the whole year."

A similar scene can be found at the Bismarck Airport, where manager Greg Haug starts seeing waterfowl hunters in September.

"Our passenger counts go up and, when passenger counts go up, our concessionaires do well," he said. "It's good for everybody."

Both airports greet hunters with information packets and maps.

"We want them to leave with the North Dakota experience," said Kim Schmidt, public and media relations director for the North Dakota Tourism Department.

In many small communities, businesses adopt the pheasant as an unofficial symbol. Others take on the bird's moniker as a lure to traveling sportsmen.

In Mott, the Tailfeather Inn, Pheasant Manor and Niemeyers Ringneck Lodge serve the housing needs for sportsmen. The Pheasant Café and Pheasant Lounge provide food and liquor.

Flyers and phone numbers offering hunting-related services plaster bulletin boards at nearly every business in town. A floor mat inside the Hettinger County Courthouse depicts a pheasant scene, and two birds stand mounted on display inside the auditor's office.

"Without the hunters coming in here, this community would be sucking wind," said Duane Olson, the Hettinger County tax director.

After the 1996 and 2001 hunting seasons, the Game and Fish Department surveyed sportsmen to determine spending habits and economic impact of resident and out-of-state hunters on the state.

However, no formal survey has been done since legislative changes during the 2003 and 2005 sessions made it more expensive and difficult for nonresident hunters.

"Sometimes you want to give some of those changes time to settle down," said Terry Steinwand, director for Game and Fish. "You can get false readings."

Leistritz, the NDSU professor who generates economic impact reports for Game and Fish, used spending habits from 2001 to estimate numbers for 2005. He adjusted spending by 10 percent to adjust for inflation.

A detailed spending analysis for 2001 shows sportsmen spent $166.4 million to hunt in North Dakota and generated an overall economic impact of $365.4 million, which includes subsequent rounds of spending within communities.

Residents' expenditures for small game hunting - which includes upland game and waterfowl - totaled $66.6 million five years ago. North Dakota sportsmen spent $38.1 million, or $112 per day, while hunting small game and $28.5 million, or $140 per day, when hunting waterfowl.

On the other hand, out-of-state sportsmen spent $31.7 million in 2001 on small game hunting - $20.9 million for waterfowl hunting and $10.8 million for upland game.

His latest estimates show $191 million in direct expenditures and $229 million in secondary spending for a total of $420 million in economic impact.

The numbers show the economic catalyst that hunting plays in North Dakota, Leistritz said.

"The influx of hunters from out of state and places like Fargo represents a real injection of new money into these communities," he said. "It's been the best economic news for these communities in a long time."

Readers can reach Forum reporter Steven P. Wagner at (701) 241-5542


----------



## MRN

dosch said:


> Check out Gary Stangs welfare program. I bet g/o's gets even more. What a bunch of scumbags!!
> 
> http://www.ewg.org:16080/farm/persondet ... =007593225


Dosch,

You gotta explain this to me. This Gary Stand guy gets money for CRP. I understand that. But this poor sot gets nothing for the other subsidies. There are a lot of other Stangs in that County that get a whole lot of money for "commodity subsidies". How do these subsidies work? Is this a crop insurance program? You opt in or opt out? I grew up in the Canadian system where you actually grew and sold grain, and the Wheat Board screwed the producers...

Thanks,
M.


----------



## SiouxperDave25

http://bismarcktribune.com/articles/200 ... 124954.txt

There is some interesting discussion at the end of the article.


----------



## Dick Monson

M, 
http://www.ewg.org:16080/farm/persondet ... vel=detail
Very likely he has all CRP, no commodities.


----------



## ADN

R y a n said:


> The difference G/O is that the City of Fargo is a *PUBLIC* entity, whereby the tax dollars are invested for the general use and good of the public. YOUR federal subsidies go to YOUR *private* interest.
> 
> I don't receive any extra federal subsidies (other than the PUBLIC benefits I receive thru my tax dollars)... why should you? The answer is you shouldn't, lest you provide an additional free public benefit in lieu of those additional dollar$.
> 
> The amount of extra income _you_ derive from a public source FAR exceeds any return _I_ see from my tax inputs!
> 
> See the difference?
> 
> Just remember that you also receive far more money than you put into the coffers when you drive on the nice public Interstate roads to and from farm to market...
> 
> As I've said many times before... It is my opinion that if you are receiving federal subsidy payments (CRP payments), there should be a stipulation that you cannot receive any additional form of commercial payment for your land, and that in effect your land is being fully set aside for open use by the general public (with the sole exception being land around your homestead quarter). Additionally, under no circumstances can you hay or plow that CRP, unless you refund your CRP payment back to the government for that portion of land you break contract with.
> 
> THEN we would see who truly is a conservationist, and who likes double/triple dipping on the public dole.


Ease up on farmers.

Farmers are providing a public good. They actually provide a number of public services. Without farmers, there would not be nearly as many and as large of open tracts of land remaining. Without them, there would be even less reason for land to be sold off in 40 acre parcels to whoever wanted a piece of ground. 
How would that benefit hunting?
Also, farmers help provide the general US population with an abundant, readily available food source. This IS a public. It provides national security in keeping us nearly self-sufficient as pertaining to food. (Insert counter argument here, I know they exist.) Also, it spreads income disparity out so that nearly everyone can afford the basic food essentials.

There is a benefit to open tracts of land that farmers help preserve that is not easily quantified. Whether they are currently open to a certain demographic for hunting or not, they still have a much larger value than broken down parcels.

Also, don't pull the greed card. The greed card can be thrown in about every different direction in this story.

The original article states " urban North Dakotans made 34 percent of the hunting land purchases from 2000 to 2004. Minnesotans accounted for another 30 percent...

This proves my orignal theory, ND-ans are bigger @-holes than MN-ans.

On a serious note, farmers are your best friends. Learn how to work with them. Also, learn how to deal with the facts of life. Hunting pressure will increase. Land use pressure will increase. Facts of life. Quit b$tching cause it will not get you anywhere. Either find a way for people to work together so that resources can be equitably shared or be quiet.


----------



## Bobm

http://www.uplandjournal.com/cgi-bin/ik ... =2;t=26870

this is happening everywhere as th above thread says about kansas, read the eand of his post



> Quit b$tching cause it will not get you anywhere. Either find a way for people to work together so that resources can be *equitably shared *or be quiet.


"Equitable" to a farmer means selling publicaly owned game animals to the public, like all welfare recipients , farmers have been on the public dole so long they actaully believe the country "owes" them a living.

Without hunting access we would get cheaper food from unsubsidized corporate operations.

Tell your senator and congressman to end the farm welfare programs


----------



## Chesador

Don't critisize a farmer taking government land payments until you have tried to make a living as a farmer. It's a tough life and a business that is very dependant on weather. Oh, remember the $3+ fuel this summer? That cost farmers far more that what they receive in annual subsidies.

Also, do you think that farming is the only business that receives government subsidies or tax breaks?

An adaquate food supply at low cost is not only a key factor of our economy but a vital part of our national security. Remember the Mad Cow scare? The Department of Homeland Security does! Yes, agriculture is a potential terrorist target.

After stating the previous please know that I am AGAINST commercial hunting of publicly owned game. Charging for access is a landowner's right but by charging a fee he is restricting hunting to those who can afford to pay. This paractice will result in hunting becoming a sport that only the upper class can participate in. Let's all try to prevent that from happening. The first thing we can do is to stop critizing the government helping farming.


----------



## Bobm

Its a business that should stand on its own two feet, and we should end all corporate welfare not just farming


----------



## Bob Kellam

There is possibly a simple solution to the issue but chances of it becoming reality are slim.

Make any landowner that wants to charge for access for hunting get an outfitters license. One of the reasons that pay hunting is so popular with landowners is it is totally unregulated. It would be interesting to know how much tax income is floating in never never land from cash transactions of pay hunting.

Bob


----------



## Bobm

how would that help access for the common guy?

farmers have sold hunting out from under the common man and we should not support the farm bills anymore.

there is no reason to help farmers stay in business when they are happy to cut us out of hunting and sell public trust game animals to the highest bidder, which is not going to be very many north dakotans.

150-300 dollars per gun per day has already ended it for many and that will grow.

Anyone that like to hunt better have aton of money or move out of NS to a state with a large amount of public land.
North dakota is the next Texas, you are screwed.


----------



## g/o

> Equitable" to a farmer means selling publicaly owned game animals to the public, like all welfare recipients , farmers have been on the public dole so long they actaully believe the country "owes" them a living.


I really enjoy this Bobm, you cry about farmers wanting everything for nothing and being on welfare. Yet you want to hunt everywhere for nothing. Isn't there an old saying something about kettles and black. :eyeroll:

Bob Kellam, I think we need somethings done to enforce outfitting laws. I think the game and fish not only needs to go after the outfitter but the one that hires them. Much the same as the prostitution stings when they nail the John. Then we need some stiff penalties for both.


----------



## Bobm

G/O
No I don't the public already subsidizes farmers we are and have for many years "paid our way" with the huge farm bill boondoggles. The thanks we got for supporting farming was for the farmer to turn its back on the common public and sell already publicly owned game animals to the wealthy.

I want the farm bill welfare ended, hunting access is already dead and I have no illusion that will change, North Dakota is the last gasp and it will end soon.

I want people to quit subsidizing welfare to farmers and every other business.

If I'm not geting access I don't want to support tax paid programs to benefit gane I can't afford to access, let the private sector that is going to use it foot the bill. 
In otherwords let your customers pay for it.


----------



## g/o

> G/O
> No I don't the public already subsidizes farmers we are and have for many years "paid our way" with the huge farm bill boondoggles. The thanks we got for supporting farming was for the farmer to turn its back on the common public and sell already publicly owned game animals to the wealthy.


The thanks you get is the cheapest and the most abundant food in the world, say thanks to the American Farmer. :beer:


----------



## deacon

Bobm said:


> G/O
> No I don't the public already subsidizes farmers we are and have for many years "paid our way" with the huge farm bill boondoggles. The thanks we got for supporting farming was for the farmer to turn its back on the common public and sell already publicly owned game animals to the wealthy.
> 
> I want the farm bill welfare ended, hunting access is already dead and I have no illusion that will change, North Dakota is the last gasp and it will end soon.
> 
> I want people to quit subsidizing welfare to farmers and every other business.
> 
> If I'm not geting access I don't want to support tax paid programs to benefit gane I can't afford to access, let the private sector that is going to use it foot the bill.
> In otherwords let your customers pay for it.


Well said Bob, like a friend of mine said to me "we do not get any government help when we have a bad year in the trailer building business, do you get any help in the building materials business in a bad year. But every time a farmer has something wrong there seams to be a government program."


----------



## Bobm

G/O
The actaul cost of food is hidden in the taxes we pay, the farm bill is a huge part of those taxes.

Unsubsidized corporate farms will provide food at the lowest actaul cost, take farmers off the public dole. Let them make it up charging your customers to hunt I don't want to use or to subsidize your commercial hunting business with my tax dollars.

The wealthy are hunting the game we subsidize.

And also take all the anti import tariffs on food and see how inexpensive it gets.

Farmers are welfare dependent and have been for along time like all welfare reicpients they have been on it so long they think its their "God given" right to dig in our pockets. uke:

Farm bill benefits should be ended if not then they should be tied directly to public access plans like plots. Hunters should get something for supporting farmers other than the screwing they are getting now.


----------



## g/o

> Farmers are welfare dependent and have been for along time like all welfare reicpients they have been on it so long they think its their "God given" right to dig in our pockets


Bobm, I really appreciate all the money you give me. This is really stupid farming is only one of the subsidies in this country. Look around at the other things like water, electricity, telephone and yes the Internet which makes this bickering possible is all subsidized. Go ahead Bobm and make farming free of subsidies and say good bye too CRP, plus a bunch of other programs. See how much wildlife you will have then. Remember Bobm when the welfare program for farmers is gone you will no longer be able to stop us from draining. Then you can kiss everything good bye, then you will have your England where only the elite can hunt. With what we got going on here now you should be thankful.


----------



## tb

I know this is a bit of a radical thought and my friends at NDG&F won't like it, but do you realize that fee hunting and out of state land purchases wasn't a problem before CRP? Maybe this is an application of the law of unintended consequences.

Oh, by the way: Did you know why they bury farmers only 3 feet deep?
.
.
.
.
.
So they can still get their hand-out.


----------



## northdakotakid

Gentleman, it is a sad that people other than North Dakotans are buying land. I agree that the only way to control it is to do somethign similar to what G/O proposes... that is to only allow non-profits.

But remember, I moved to Arizona and I can tell you that it is not the locals that are driving the price of housiong up here... it is the snow birds. It is amazing how your perception can change with your geography.

I do agree again, if you want farmers to be able to afford to farm... restrict the sales.


----------



## Bobm

G/O
You have alot of good reasoned posts on this topic.

However, answer these questions directly, if access is gone to the public why should we care or be willing to pay for farm subsidies?

Don't waste time with the cheap food line, thats artificial and both of us know it.

Lets keep it on the hunting topic,

1)why should hunters support farmers politically now that farmers have sold hunting access out from under them?

2) crp, why should we care if we no longer have access?

3) its already like england in many states and ND is gong that way rapidly so why should we care after we lost access.

Thats what farmers don't realize the are alienating a huge voting block that has historically been sympathetic to them, the common hunter.

ALthough hunters are politically dormant, disinterested and probably not going to do much, I guess farmers have that apathy to count on.


----------



## g/o

Bobm fair enough

1 No one has sold access out from under you. Say as you may Bobm but in ND if land isn't posted you are allowed to hunt it. Ever tried asking? I can give you names of many guys on this site that hunt acres and acres of land out here and all they do is ask. Is that to much to ask? Should it not be the farmers right to know who is on the land they own. If a gate is left open I want to know who left it open. If someone cleans birds and leaves the carcasses in my yard I want to know who has done it. Sorry you disagree Bobm but we just want to know who is on our land.

2. Again Bobm no one has denied you access. This is a figment in your mind. ASK BOBM!!!!!!! If you don't care about CRP that's fine but it was never intended to be a hunting bill anyway. My property is in because of the abundant wetlands, now if water and air and birds mean nothing to you so be it.

3 Lets see we are approaching 1 million acres of PLOTS alone in ND. That does not include the number of USFW acres, WPA etc. I would say that is a impressive amount of land to be able to hunt for "free" as you say.

Bobm why is it we hear from a few on this site about how rotten things are. Yet I talk with freelance N/R hunters all the time and they tell me how great it is out here. I've had people from all over the US thank me for the things we are doing as a community. All you do is cry about how tough things are. Bobm you want to hunt go knock on some doors. With a chip on a shoulder like you have its no wonder you can't find a place to hunt. Go ahead Bobm and knock on a farmers door and tell him how they are on welfare and how you hate the farm bill. You want access change your attitude. I'm done with this if you want to keep blasting farmers go ahead.


----------



## Bobm

Noone has sold access thats laughable you quote acreages lets see the number leased by outfitters and no longer availble for the public those guides don't lease it to give it away.

Once access is sold to guides asking is not an option.

You the one that brought up crp not me,

I said give crp payments and other assiatance to farmers that allow the public to hunt for the asking, not for anyone that sells it to middleman guides.
After all its the publics dollars paying for the crp ect. not just your customers.



> I'm done with this if you want to keep blasting farmers go ahead.


Farmers don't seem to mind cutting the public hunters out do they.


----------



## always_outdoors

> 3 Lets see we are approaching 1 million acres of PLOTS alone in ND. That does not include the number of USFW acres, WPA etc. I would say that is a impressive amount of land to be able to hunt for "free" as you say.


You sure love to throw that out don't you? How much PLOTS have you hunted this year? I have done quite a bit and spent an entire morning in central ND trying to find one that wasn't hayed (don't get me wrong, I have no problem with them haying it). How about those PLOT acres in Grand Forks County? That is like heading to Pembina to find pheasants.

I did happen to hunt one nice looking PLOTS area about 2 days before NR's could come in and the landowner said I was about the 6th group to walk that land THAT DAY.

You can keep throwing that out, but if you take away the hayed acres along with acres that are in places that don't have birds, that 1 million gets pretty scarce and puts alot of people on the same treks of land day in and day out pushing birds over to private land.

But see you can't seem to see that G/O because you are on the other side of the fence. You do not have the same issues as a freelance hunter does because you have never experienced it before.

I am not hear to complain or bash the farmer. I love what we have here in ND, but it is quickly diminishing in front of my eyes. Much of the land I used to access is posted and even asking you still get turned down. I start in July talking with farmers and helping out. My wife just can't believe all the work I would go to just for hunting, but she comes from the farm herself here in ND and understands the work I put in. Yet even with all the time I put in as many others do on this site, we still are told "no" many times to our faces.

I have stretched my budget about as far as it can go now. I used to be able to hunt locally for pheasants, but the options are much more limited so I am trying to make longer trips to other places in ND. But for how much longer can I do that? I have a newborn son that hopefully will want to hunt. What do I do when access is restricted even further because the rate at which one is denied access is increasing faster every year.

I have always been a supporter of the family farm. Bobm and I disagree with this as I feel that in an ideal world pork wouldn't happen, but realistically it always will, so let's give it back to keep the family farm instead of some country who could care less about us. We will agree to disagree on that one.

Problem is. I have 950 acres that is arm's reach away from where I live. Currently rented by the family farmer. So what happens when I can no longer afford to travel to every reach of the state with my son to hunt pheasants? When does it become more feasible to take the 950 acres away from the farmer and create our own place and raise our own birds?

Do you see what is forced upon us when access is denied or restricted? You can only push so far and then it becomes everyone's own game with everyone taking care of themselves. Sad isn't it? Not really why I wanted to live here. Not the way my parents raise me either. But what other options will I have in the future?

This got too long. Sorry everyone.


----------



## Bobm

Dick or Bob Kellam, or really anyone??

Do either one of you have a statistic on how much land has been taken off the table by commercial hunting operations?

I would love to see that number.

And a side affect of all the leasing and posting is it so concentrates hunters on the remaining land that it gets pounded and there is conflict so the remaining land gets posted and often of limits. I don't blame the farmer in that situation he gets overun.

lv2hunt said



> I have always been a supporter of the family farm. Bobm and I disagree with this as I feel that in an ideal world pork wouldn't happen, but realistically it always will, so let's give it back to keep the family farm instead of some country who could care less about us. We will agree to disagree on that one.


lets not give pork to anyone without strings attached, if all they want is our money and then to turn us away when we want something from them I say cut the pork off, farmers or foriegner I dont care if they get our money they should be willing to cooperate.

Farmers minds have just been posioned by G/O's that have convinced them to let the G/Os broker hunting to the rest of us.

Personally I think guides are a lot worse varmints than coyotes.


----------



## Bob Kellam

Outfitter Leased Acres By County 2005 
County Outfitter Acres 
Adams 
01-01-00 600 
06-01-00 3500 
21-04-00 2880 
45-03-00 500 
Adams County Total 7480 
Barnes 
02-01-00 5000 
02-04-00 1307 
02-05-00 2479 
Barnes County Total 8786 
Benson 
03-07-00 1400 
36-02-00 4460 
36-04-00 3300 
36-08-00 3400 
36-09-00 795 
Benson County Total 13355 
Billings 
04-02-00 8380 
21-04-00 1280 
Billings County Total 9660 
Bottineau 
05-02-00 3240 
05-03-00 170 
05-04-00 400 
05-09-00 5400 
Bottineau County Total 9210 
Bowman 
01-01-00 300 
06-01-00 12140 
06-03-00 9100 
Bowman County Total 21540 
Burleigh 
08-04-00 4540 
08-08-00 2480 
22-01-00 960 
Burleigh County Total 7980 
Cavalier 
10-01-00 5715 
Cavalier County Total 5715 
Dickey 
11-02-00 3840 
11-03-00 1360 
11-05-00 3000 
11-07-00 2560 
11-08-00 4800 
11-09-00 2380 
11-10-00 1460 
23-01-00 3720 
23-02-00 5220 
23-03-00 1200 
23-04-00 1440 
Dickey County Total 30980 
Divide 
53-04-00 500 
53-05-00 350 
Divide County Total 850 
Dunn 
04-01-00 3840 
27-08-00 8440 
45-03-00 480 
45-04-00 7000 
45-08-00 4000 
Dunn County Total 23760 
Eddy Outfitter Acres 
14-02-00 4260 
14-03-00 900 
14-05-00 3552 
16-02-00 1000 
20-02-00 1280 
20-03-00 320 
Eddy County Total 11312 
Emmons 
15-01-00 8280 
15-04-00 2700 
Emmons County Total 10980 
Foster 
16-02-00 2000 
20-02-00 1000 
20-03-00 2680 
Foster County Total 5680 
Golden Valley 
04-02-00 9000 
17-01-00 2000 
17-02-00 13500 
Golden Valley County Total 24500 
Grant 
09-02-00 2000 
19-01-00 2980 
19-02-00 4140 
21-04-00 2240 
Grant County Total 11360 
Griggs 
20-02-00 500 
Griggs County Total 500 
Hettinger 
01-01-00 1120 
09-07-00 1300 
21-03-00 4400 
21-04-00 22080 
21-05-00 4840 
21-06-00 510 
21-07-00 5720 
45-01-00 800 
45-03-00 1248 
45-05-00 1000 
Hettinger County Total 43018 
Kidder 
22-01-00 2560 
22-02-00 1560 
Kidder County Total 4120 
LaMoure 
02-05-00 364 
11-10-00 200 
23-02-00 320 
23-03-00 2880 
23-04-00 640 
LaMoure County Total 4404 
Logan 
22-02-00 1000 
24-01-00 9440 
Logan County Total 10440 
McHenry 
05-03-00 2760 
25-02-00 1000 
25-03-00 3500 
28-01-00 2320 
35-01-00 6610 
51-02-00 480 
McHenry County Total 16670 
McIntosh 
08-03-00 9600 
McIntosh County Total 9600

County Outfitter Acres 
McKenzie 
04-01-00 3200 
27-01-00 5500 
27-02-00 2100 
27-08-00 3040 
27-10-00 3780 
27-11-00 2800 
45-04-00 7600 
45-06-00 2760 
53-01-00 1200 
53-02-00 3060 
McKenzie County Total 35040 
McLean 
08-10-00 960 
28-01-00 7140 
28-08-00 6880 
36-15-00 7500 
51-02-00 605 
McLean County Total 23085 
Mercer 
29-05-00 320 
29-08-00 9220 
Mercer County Total 9540 
Morton 
01-01-00 1500 
30-03-00 3300 
45-01-00 900 
Morton County Total 5700 
Mountrail 
31-01-00 2138 
31-03-00 8417 
31-06-00 4172 
51-04-00 2020 
53-04-00 1000 
Mountrail County Total 17747

County Outfitter Acres 
Nelson 
18-03-00 1500 
20-02-00 1000 
32-02-00 5900 
32-04-00 100 
Nelson County Total 8500 
Oliver 
29-05-00 2560 
29-07-00 2000 
30-03-00 500 
Oliver County Total 5060 
Pierce 
05-03-00 120 
36-09-00 600 
48-01-00 2015 
Pierce County Total 2735 
Ramsey 
10-01-00 2360 
32-04-00 320 
36-02-00 2440 
36-04-00 800 
36-08-00 4000 
36-09-00 1960 
36-18-00 460 
50-01-00 1240 
Ramsey County Total 13580 
Rolette 
48-01-00 1280 
Rolette County Total 1280 
Sheridan 
42-01-00 15000 
42-02-00 6800 
42-03-00 9200 
Sheridan County Total 31000

County Outfitter Acres 
Sioux 
19-01-00 4000 
19-02-00 4880 
Sioux County Total 8880 
Slope 
01-01-00 600 
06-01-00 3600 
06-03-00 1120 
17-02-00 6450 
21-03-00 4960 
21-06-00 240 
44-01-00 8700 
45-08-00 160 
Slope County Total 25830 
Stark 
45-01-00 800 
45-03-00 9335 
45-05-00 1480 
45-07-00 1200 
45-08-00 2920 
Stark County Total 15735 
Stutsman 
09-01-00 6000 
47-06-00 3400 
47-07-00 5935 
Stutsman County Total 15335 
Towner 
48-01-00 5240 
Towner County Total 5240 
Walsh 
32-02-00 500 
50-01-00 1840 
Walsh County Total 2340

County Outfitter Acres 
Ward 
51-04-00 3260 
Ward County Total 3260 
Wells 
42-02-00 1040 
Wells County Total 1040 
Williams 
53-04-00 1000 
Williams County Total 1000

Grand Total *523827 *
Friday, February 03, 2006

Does not include land owned by outfitters or unlicensed pay hunting land

Bob


----------



## g/o

> Does not include land owned by outfitters or unlicensed pay hunting land


I disagree Bob we are required to report name of owner or lessor/ and acreage used. unlicensed pay hunting would not come into play would it Bob? We are talking about guides and outfitters if not licensed they would not be one. Jeez Bob it must be getting close to legislature time your starting to spin things like Dick Monson :wink:


----------



## Maverick

You know what I am reading? A G/O that is full of complaints.



> lets not give pork to anyone without strings attached, if all they want is our money and then to turn us away when we want something from them I say cut the pork off, farmers or foriegner I dont care if they get our money they should be willing to cooperate.


Words of Wizdom there.....G/O you need to re-read it and before you post....read it again!!!!



> I am not hear to complain or bash the farmer


 a Quote from a hunter....


> Go ahead Bobm and knock on a farmers door and tell him how they are on welfare and how you hate the farm bill.


 Assumption by a G/O!!!!!!!

*Who are the people giving farmers the wrong info on how we(hunters) feel about this topic!! Maybe G/O's that's my assumption!!*

Just more ignorance...... uke:

Talk about spinning things...Look in the mirror Bud!!!!!


----------



## Bobm

G/O, I thought you were done :wink:

over half a million acres leased by the G/O's from farmers and all of it probably prime hunting lands, and G/O claims" no one is selling the common hunter out".

Think about that folks a half a million acres of prime hunting lands the commercial hunting crowd and the North Dakotan politician they have in their pockets have taken access from you citizens of North Dakota the actual taxpayers of the state, and sold to the highest bidder.

Thats why I am now against across the board no strings attached farm subsidies ( welfare no matter what euphemism you want to candy coat it with).

Cut off the subsidies to farmers that are selling the common man North Dakotan hunter and his children out and selling the states hunting heritage to local and state politicians and their wealthy buddies.

I bet those politicians have a free place to hunt and realize you don't have the sense to hold them accountable in the next election,

or do you???

How many days a year will you hunt at 300/gun per day ?


----------



## Dick Monson

> Grand Total 523827
> Friday, February 03, 2006
> Does not include land owned by outfitters or unlicensed pay hunting land


 And it doesn't include acres from farmers who outfitt unlicensed on their own land, nor day leasing acres which is highly popular for waterfowl.


----------



## djleye

> And also take all the anti import tariffs on food and see how inexpensive it gets


Quite frankly, I don't want to eat foreign food, I want it home grown. Maybe there will be less chance of it being tampered with!!! Maybe I worry too much! :huh:


----------



## indsport

Whoa there g/o. You are flat out wrong and Bob Kellam and Dick are correct. There are numerous mom and pop day leasing operations that are not related to outfitters/ guides (and a source of potentially unreported income), particularly in the SW. As far as I can discern, a farmer renting his land for hunting is not required to be a guide or outfitter since they do neither. As far back as 1992, I requested that either state game department or state tax deparment investigate day leasing. From my own personal experience, in SW north dakota, there were, at that time, at least 8 different landowners in a 5 mile radius in a certain part of Grant county that charged "day leases", cash only, no receipts. In that day, I can recall at least 14 different types of posted no hunting signs each with a different color or pattern that indicated which land owner, just on one stretch of 6 miles of gravel road. It is also becoming more common in the southeast part of the state (at least 3 I know of locally this year).

There is no way for the state or any other entity to collect information on something that is not monitored or reported other than estimates.


----------



## Bobm

djleye,
We eat a lot of imported food now.

Its all mexicans picking it here and working in the food processing plants anyways.

Whats a little e-coli among neighbors :lol:

I design and sell the sytems they use in the sanitation of food processing and kill plants.

Cook everthing well :wink: .

I actually sold the system in Jamestown at what was then a french fry plant, I think. My memories good just very short :beer:

Thats where I was pleasantly surprised at what nice people North Dakotans are.


----------



## g/o

http://gf.nd.gov/licenses/docs/guide-outfit-appl.pdf

If you will notice on page 2 number 5

List of land where services will be provided to include Name of Lessor or owner,acreage, and county of land. When I list my land where services are provided I list the land I own plus the land I lease for ag purposes which yes Dick is exempt. I also hunt on my neighbors land so therefore I must have an outfitters license. The land I own and lease for ag purposes is included in the list Bob Kellam provided. Also, many lodges have more than one outfitter. For instance a husband and wife are both outfitters. Some of the land they report is doubled up. The game and fish does a good job of trying to catch this but does miss. So the acreage report is not that accurate.

Dick make sure you read number 6

List of land day leased on for previous year by acreage and county.



> nor day leasing acres which is highly popular for waterfowl


kind of blows the hell out that doesn't it Dick :wink:


----------



## Maverick

Boy someone needs to re-read things again!!!!



> kind of blows the hell out that doesn't it Dick


Actually your wrong again G/O......

He said.....


> And it doesn't include acres from farmers *who outfitt unlicensed *on their own land, nor day leasing acres which is highly popular for waterfowl.


So to point it out to you (seeing as you missed his point) if someone does not liscense themselves and guiding (which we all know is happening) those acres are not being included. You cannot say that every acre that is being used for guiding purposes is on that list!!!!!You simple cannot, and I do believe that the game and fish is smart enough to tell if mom and dad ( who probably fill out the info. on the same sheet or atleast mail them togethor) are using the same fields to guide on. So the number is probably low!!!!

So yes it kind of does blows the hell out of what you are trying to say G/O!!!

Round and round we go, till G/O stops spining things around, we will go!!!

uke: uke: uke:


----------



## ADN

Bobm said:


> G/O
> You have alot of good reasoned posts on this topic.
> 
> However, answer these questions directly, if access is gone to the public why should we care or be willing to pay for farm subsidies?
> 
> Don't waste time with the cheap food line, thats artificial and both of us know it.
> 
> Lets keep it on the hunting topic,
> 
> 1)why should hunters support farmers politically now that farmers have sold hunting access out from under them?
> 
> 2) crp, why should we care if we no longer have access?
> 
> 3) its already like england in many states and ND is gong that way rapidly so why should we care after we lost access.
> 
> Thats what farmers don't realize the are alienating a huge voting block that has historically been sympathetic to them, the common hunter.
> 
> ALthough hunters are politically dormant, disinterested and probably not going to do much, I guess farmers have that apathy to count on.


You don't think that the food supplies in this country are relatively cheap? Isn't the food supply abundant? When was the last time there was a severe shortage of any of the essential items that are required for proper nutrition?

Farm subsidies take SOME of the volatility out of the farming markets making it more feasible for farmers. Look at the airline industry, that is heavily susidized. Last time I checked you still had to buy a ticket to get on board.

Farm subsidies are not going away nor should they. Federal subsidies are given in many different ways that only directly benefit a select few. However, they provide a much larger benefit to the well being of society. So farm subsidies don't benefit you by allowing you access to THEIR land for farming. They benefit you and the general public in other ways.

Also, remember, the US population is estimated to be 300 million. If a farmer accepting subsidies thereby gives permission to the general public to access his land, then be prepared to compete with a few more people. Remember, if their land should be open to hunting because you say so, then it should be open to ATVer's, hikers, bikers, campers.... Your claim that an individual or business accepting subsidies should entitle you to more than them paying taxes is ridiculous. Simply ridiculous.


----------



## jdpete75

I dont really agree that all lands should be open just for getting a subsidy payment, but EVERY acre of CRP more than 440yds from an occupied building should be open to public access.


----------



## Bobm

heres the screwing all of us get with the farm subsidies

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1763.cfm

Pork is pork and everyone pro pork's main defense is that someone else is getting it so we should also.

A hopelessly stupid argument but the only one they can come up with.

Farm subsidies add at least $2,500.00/year to every taxpayers taxes, and drive the cost of food up.

Whats worse is its mostly a farce a huge % of it is paid to extremely wealthy farmers many who are members of the Senate or the US house not the little guy its touted to help


----------



## Ron Gilmore

All these issues can only be fixed in the Leg session, but as long as we hunters continue to beat the drum of NR being the bad Bogey man then we will continue to get out butts handed to us.

The issue is commercial hunting operations, both legal and illegal. I doubt that this year will be much different than others, but I hope they are. Since the majority of Leg seem to think us hunters are crying over our favorite spots or being beat to a field, we will continue to loose the fight.

NR feed the commercial operations so why not target those NR only? Require them to buy a separate license and restrict them to hunting on land that the G/O has under his control. Make it illegal for a G/O to hunt on any land that is not under lease and have them post those acres with signs showing they are under lease. Eliminate the day leasing of land and have all acres leased be reported before the opening of small game season. No additional acres can be added to the list after that date. Also do not allow anyone that buys a NR/outfitter use license to purchase a regular NR license. Then we could eliminate the 7 day PLOTS restrictions that really penalize the freelance hunters.

Forget about caps, zones and leg tags just make sure those who are using a G/O are paying twice or more for a license and dump that money into the enforcement of the above laws.

These are not new ideas, but make the most sense. In regards to NR buying land, unless we change the taxation status this is going to continue and continue.

G/O gets beat up all the time, but his type of operation is not what is hurting hunting. Operations the size of Cannonball, Sheldon's old outfit and others of that size are the issue. Not all run outlaw organizations like Sheldon, but they influence what is happening from Crosby to Hankison. Fight the fight that is driving the reduction in access and stop kicking dirt into all the farmers face.

You would be surprised at the support these things would get, if guys would stop and really think about where the issue is coming from. Everyone is focusing on pressure, but we have not addressed the number one area of reduced access and that is simply commercial hunting operations. Because when Outfitter A can leave his leased land alone and hunt a field that is not posted, he pushes another group onto someone else. Landowners who do not want to lease post their land to prevent Outfitter A from getting a free lunch. If you cannot get a hold of him then RES and NR hunter is pushed to another field and more and more this means a close encounter with another hunter.

So enjoy the articles but stop and realize that all the back and forth here is just spit into an ocean. This stuff is all controlled by what happens in Bismarck and by the way it sounds we are heading there again with the wrong agenda!


----------



## Bobm

> NR feed the commercial operations so why not target those NR only? Require them to buy a separate license and restrict them to hunting on land that the G/O has under his control. Make it illegal for a G/O to hunt on any land that is not under lease and have them post those acres with signs showing they are under lease. Eliminate the day leasing of land and have all acres leased be reported before the opening of small game season. No additional acres can be added to the list after that date. Also do not allow anyone that buys a NR/outfitter use license to purchase a regular NR license. Then we could eliminate the 7 day PLOTS restrictions that really penalize the freelance hunters.


Wont the local business get mad when G/O's react by having full line services lodging food service ect. The NRs feeding the guiding operations don't care about minor costs and don't need to hunt off the G/O reservation so to speak, so they wont care.

Eliminate all NR hunting or eliminate guiding one or the other.

As for G/O I like him I give him a hard time but Hes actaully apretty nice guy and a straight shooter most of the time.

And I've always liked farmers I'm just sick and tiered of whats happening to hunting , I know alot of people think its inevitable, and it must be, its already gone in most of the rest of private land in the whole country.

I used to want to retire in ND but now know that if I want to hunt I need to move to some state with lots of public land.


----------



## Bob Kellam

Forum Editorial: Pheasants translate into dollars
The Forum
Published Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Forum reporter Steven P. Wagner spent a week in North Dakota pheasant country before writing his two-part series on the economic impact of hunting (Sunday and Monday, page A1). What he saw and learned confirmed what residents of the most popular pheasant hunting counties already knew: Nonresident upland bird hunters spend a lot of money during the season in the region's small towns. In fact, the infusion of new money into rural economies has been an enormous windfall that, in some instances, has helped farmers and ranchers stay on the land, and kept many small-town businesses afloat.

And it's not only pheasants. Waterfowl and big game hunters comprise a significant proportion of hunters who spend money in rural counties and towns during the seasons.

Change can be difficult. The spike in bird hunting brought about by the explosion in the pheasant population, for example, has stirred conflicts among so-called traditional resident hunters, nonresidents who have been purchasing prime hunting tracts and farmers who have closed their lands to all but paying hunters. Land values have increased, not because agriculture has been better, but because hunters are willing to pay more for prime hunting acres. Not all landowners have benefited from the hunting economy, so resentments fester.

Nonetheless, economic studies from North Dakota State University have generated good numbers to go with anecdotal reports from pheasant and waterfowl country. The impact in rural areas is in the hundreds of millions of dollars, not only from nonresidents coming to North Dakota but also from resident hunters. The difference, however, is nonresidents bring new money into the state, while resident expenditures are shifts in spending within the state. Both are important to the small communities in hunting country, but the out-of-state dollars constitute new money that would not be coming into the state's economy if non-resident hunters stayed away.

Some traditionalists opine that hunting should not be about money - that hunting is becoming a rich person's sport. That's a tad overblown. There are millions of acres in North Dakota that are open - free of charge - to waterfowl and upland bird hunters. Much of it is public land. Private land access often depends on hunters developing relationships with landowners. Granted, some of those relationships have changed because of fee hunting and land purchases by out-of-state hunters. But that's the free market at work. Farmers and ranchers merely are finding a new way to earn money from their land. Good for them.

As an NDSU economic researcher put it: "It's been the best economic news for these communities in a long time." North Dakotans, wherever they live, should be happy about that.

Forum editorials represent the opinion of Forum management and the newspaper's Editorial Board


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Thanks Bob for posting the article. It underscores the sentiment that the majority of rural business feel. It is why I stated what I did. Focus on the G/O and its clients. Because Betty's Diner,Joe's Bar, Mikes Motel do not want less hunters regardless of where you are from. The farmer while aggravated with high pressure is not aggravated now like he was in Oct either.

So the issues at hand regarding any significant changes that would benefit hunters and not hurt rural business owners comes down to issues related to commercial operations and non Ag land purchases. Take the emotions out of the thought process and focus on promoting things that will get the support of rural people as well.

The NR free lance hunter is just as welcome as most of us are. The NR using G/O and the G/O are not as well as the non licensed Outfitter.

IF YOU ALWAYS DO WHAT YOU ALWAYS DID! YOU WILL GET WHAT YOU ALWAYS GOT!

We need to remember this going into Jan and from the sounds of things it is not being remembered!!!!!


----------



## g/o

Finally the Forum got it right!!!!



> Some traditionalists opine that hunting should not be about money - that hunting is becoming a rich person's sport. That's a tad overblown. There are millions of acres in North Dakota that are open - free of charge - to waterfowl and upland bird hunters. Much of it is public land. Private land access often depends on hunters developing relationships with landowners. Granted, some of those relationships have changed because of fee hunting and land purchases by out-of-state hunters. But that's the free market at work. Farmers and ranchers merely are finding a new way to earn money from their land. Good for them.


This says it all!!!


----------



## Maverick

Ohhh yes...selling our national heritage. I guess it has a dollar sign around it now.


----------



## ADN

Maverick said:


> Ohhh yes...selling our national heritage. I guess it has a dollar sign around it now.


If you don't like it, go become a farmer and you will have all the land you could wish to hunt. Then you can regulate who accesses it as you wish. It is private property. Farmers, as well as every other citizen, should be given reasonable control over what is personally owned. The ability of individuals to own and control, within reason, personal possesions is a fundamental part of a capitalist, free market economy.


----------



## Maverick

> If you don't like it, go become a farmer and you will have all the land you could wish to hunt. Then you can regulate who accesses it as you wish. It is private property. Farmers, as well as every other citizen, should be given reasonable control over what is personally owned. The ability of individuals to own and control, within reason, personal possesions is a fundamental part of a capitalist, free market economy.


Good idea ADN. Why don't all the city folk buy up all the land so farmers have nothing to farm on! Good idea!!! You think the price of land would go up or down?



> If you don't like it, go become a farmer


 Words of wizdom there.....Nice .....

Who ever said they don't have the right to regulate it! If you are getting federal aid(the money comes from the public) to keep your land and don't let the public hunt it ( people who are paying your bills) I see a problem with that. All take and no give. Who is being the selfish one? I don't undstand your logic! If there is any?


----------



## Gohon

> If you are getting federal aid(the money comes from the public) to keep your land and don't let the public hunt it ( people who are paying your bills) I see a problem with that.


The federal aid is to keep the farmer in the business of feeding the country. It has nothing to do with hunting.......... hunting is a sport and gives you no right to the farmers land just because you pay taxes. About 70% of my property taxes goes to various school programs in my area. I don't have kids in school............ do I have a right to demand the school down the road allow me to us school property.......... I think not. What you really want is something for nothing at someone's else's expense. Get real.


----------



## Maverick

> The federal aid is to keep the farmer in the business of feeding the country.


 Really....I didn't know that, but thanks for explaining.... :eyeroll:



> The federal aid is to keep the farmer in the business of feeding the country. It has nothing to do with hunting..........


so when I said....


> If you are getting federal aid(the money comes from the public) to *keep your land*


 I was right. I was not reffering to who got the food but merly the money the are taking to keep their land in production. No production, No Land....
Spining in circles now..........



> hunting is a sport and gives you no right to the farmers land just because you pay taxes


 And the farmers have the right to sell "the chance" (as G/O would say) at animals they don't own either. Makes no sense to me, when we are the ones paying for the animals as well.



> hunting is a sport and gives you no right to the farmers land just because you pay taxes


 I do have the right to hunt though!!!What right am I taking away from the farmer. A chance to hunt the animals that eat their crops and cost us more in depridation. Your logic still makes no sense! Am I not helping the farmer by eradicating the animals that are eating their proffit?



> About 70% of my property taxes goes to various school programs in my area. I don't have kids in school............ do I have a right to demand the school down the road allow me to us school property.......... I think not. What you really want is something for nothing at someone's else's expense.


Last time I checked we were talking about hunting here, not schools.



> What you really want is something for nothing at someone's else's expense.


 and that right there really makes no sense because it is at my expense if the farmers don't produce a good crop. When actually it is alot of my expense when their crop fails(taxes/insurance/subsidies). Think about it!! NO, really think about it!!!



> Get real


 Take your own advice in Oklahoma uke:


----------



## Gohon

> Take your own advice in Oklahoma


Well............ actually I do fella, since the aid isn't just for poor little old you there in ND. It covers us all. Fortunately I have a Senator representing me that wants aid for this state also but demands it be paid for first, unlike the two clowns you have in Washington. He even stood on the floor yesterday and flat out told Conrad that all they were doing with their $4.5 billion bill was trying to buy votes, and he is right.

The school comparison was just that.......... a point that all you're doing is crying because you can't get something for nothing. If you were really serious you would simply suggest that any farmer that takes federal aid should not be allowed to hunt his land period. But that's not what you really want though is it sport.



> it is at my expense if the farmers don't produce a good crop.


Really? Then how do you explain that the bill Conrad has before the floor now is not for failed crops but crops that were never planted in the first place.


----------



## Maverick

Is this about hunting or politics? Because you are spinning like a top right now!!

Keep it for the politics forum.

Round and Round.......
Round and Round.......

and really please stop YOUR WHINING. So your not really taking your own advice are you?


----------



## Gohon

Go back and read the first post.............. it says "crp payments and other assistance to farmers". Guess where that comes from. It sure isn't out of hunting fees but that's okay......... I didn't expect you to answer the question anyway. BTW, this is the Hot Topics Forum............ neither hunting nor politics.

The aid you are complaining about that you claim should allow you free access to the farmers fields, still has nothing to do with failed crops and you did in fact say you were paying the farmers to keep food flowing to the nation. Spin all you want but you are the one that is complaining about not having free access to every farm acre in the state that receives any form of subsidies. When you gain that right, the farmer no longer owns his land. It is then community property and he is nothing more than a tenant on his own property. Sounds like the mother land in another country we know.


----------



## Maverick

We can go in to the "He said/ She said stuff" Who said what on the white House floor blaa blaa blaa.....I could really care less what you sentaor said to my senator. Personally you sound like a 4th grader tatteling on another ;-)

Round and Round we go....will the spinning stop? No one knows. I am done with you GOHON. If you lived here I love to hear your thoughts, but your view means nothing to me as you have no say in our state, and I have no say in yours. Just remeber that.
One thing you have to remember Gohon is that the goverment DOES own all the land. Yes we own rights to it but we really don't own it. The goverment does. Ever herd of annexation.
why don't you stick to oklahomaoutdoors.com. You are a local there!! :withstupid:


----------



## Chuck Smith

Maverick you are WRONG!

The goverment does not own the land.

But they do secure a right.....it is the right of eminent domain. That means they can take your land but they have to pay you the fair market value of it or just compensation.

The goverment also controls/owns the rights to the air space above your land. ie air space. (Air Commerece Act of 1926 and Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938)

Example. A person who owns a building (sky scraper) can not launch weather ballons off the roof if it interfers with a neighboring airport or the flight patterns of that airport.

So again.....the goverment does not own all the land in the US. They do retain a right.....Eminent Domain.

Chuck


----------



## Maverick

So actually we are both right Annexation Vs. Eminet Domain.

How the hell do we own something if the goverment reserves the rights to it?


----------



## MRN

Maverick,

I could see it going another way too:

You (and Bobm and else) suggest that CRP farm subsidy program be tied to a PLOTS-ike program. Sounds reasonable. Make it all part and parcel. Folks wanting to sign up know what its about. Folks like Gohon can simply not sign up. I agree this could be the simplest way to go - imagine the Feds to give the $$ to the State and the State deals with it. Perhaps State F&G would take over the BLM weed control stuff on CRP then too - make it win-win-win.

A softer approach is just to put a stop to renting land for hunting when also receiving subsidy payments for the land. Imagine renting the land for grazing while getting CRP payments. Uh Uh. Make it the same for hunting. No one would be forced to allow hunting on the land, but neither could they charge for access (e.g., the Alberta/Sask model). A few wild burrs would post their land forever and proclaim that a resident hunter would never set foot on it again - but you and I know these are just a few blow hards (some online) and do not represent the opinions of most of the farmers in ND. Heck, put 5 farmers in a room and you have 10 different opinions.

The last farm bill was shot down cold (yet again, yesterday). One would think generating public support would be important. Heck, I'd be really nice to Bobm in hopes that he called his Senators to support the next farm bill. instead of telling him to pound sand. Bobm - what would it take to get you to support a farm bill?

M.


----------



## Chuck Smith

What they have is the right to act on eminent domain.

They still have to pay for the land. That means they buy the land and become the new land owners.

But the goverment to take land by eminent domain is a long process and goes through courts, judges, County board's, State boards, Township boards, elected officials, etc. The list is long and not easy.

Example..... A town wants to build a bike path through Farmers A, B, C, D and E feilds. Farmers A, B, C, and D all agree and donate or receive just compensation. Farmer E wants to hold out and get "Mega Bucks" for the Land. The city offers $1000 more per acre than the average land sales. Farmer E still says "No". So then the city starts the eminent domain process. First it has to go to the state officals to see if a bike trail is need in that small town. Then it has to go to the county board to see if it is needed. Then the Township board. Then the City Council. Now once it is established that the bike trail is warranted. Now the City attorney needs to take the hearing before a judge. Then the judge needs to decide if the trail can be worked a different way or route. If the only Route is through E's farm then the judge will decided that "eminent domain" domain is necessary. They the judge will rule the the city needs to pay farmer E XXX amount per acre. Then if farmer E still is upset and not gotten his "Pay day" he can appeal the judges ruling.

You see eminent domain is not an easy process and is a last resort most of the time.

So again you are still wrong. Because the goverment becomes the new land owner and the goverment has to prove that the accusition of the land is worhwhile and necessary.

Annexation is different as well. Annexation has to do with a town or city moving its boundries for city water, roads, waste disposal, land developement (housing and commercial), etc.
_____________________________________________________________

Sorry to hi-jack thread or change the discussion. But I just wanted to set the record straight on a few terms being used.

-Chuck


----------



## Dick Monson

*MRN said:*


> A softer approach is just to put a stop to renting land for hunting when also receiving subsidy payments for the land. Imagine renting the land for grazing while getting CRP payments. Uh Uh. Make it the same for hunting. No one would be forced to allow hunting on the land, but neither could they charge for access (e.g., the Alberta/Sask model). A few wild burrs would post their land forever and proclaim that a resident hunter would never set foot on it again - but you and I know these are just a few blow hards (some online)


Best idea I ever heard on the access issue! My CRP contract had a similar provision if I never allowed haying. Sen. Conrad's "open fields" program was like this.


----------



## Gohon

Maverick get a clue. The topic isn't about North Dakota or Oklahoma but subsidies to farmers and that affects everyone in the US. We all pay money into that pool that is being used as pork. That $4.5 billion is just as much mine as yours and I have every right to complain about it no matter who gets it. Talk about sounding like a 4th grader........... You really should educate yourself a little before posting such bs. And no, you weren't even close to being right about the government owning the land. Since you can't or won't converse in a civil manner I'll let you get back to you crying but you have a nice day anyway. oke:


----------



## Maverick

Who is crying sally.....



> The topic isn't about North Dakota or Oklahoma but subsidies to farmers and that affects everyone in the US


 You were the one who made it so. Now you may ask yourself HOW? HMMM " My senator told you Senator.."



> That $4.5 billion is just as much mine as yours and I have every right to complain about it no matter who gets it


 Same here sally...



> Since you can't or won't converse in a civil manner I'll let you get back to you crying but you have a nice day anyway


 Well seeing as you started with the name calling I guess you are one step ahead of me babby boy!!!


----------



## Maverick

If as OWNERS of land we should be able to sell our land to whoever we want. So why can't we sell it to Canada. We have the right since we OWN it RIGHT? No we don't have the right to sell it to Canada. Why? Because we really don't own it. The United States of America does!

You have to admit that we merly rent the land. Other wise we would be paying taxes on it.


----------



## Gohon

MRN, I thought that vote wasn't coming up to the floor for a full vote until Friday. What I saw yesterday was arguments for and against it yesterday and then it was tabled for a floor vote later. I called Senator Colburns office yesterday, they told me Colburn, who is the one stopping the bill at the moment just wants money stripped from other programs to pay for the farm bill amendment submitted by Conrad. Seems to me that isn't asking to much.


----------



## Chuck Smith

*Maverick wrote:*"You have to admit that we merly rent the land. Other wise we would be paying taxes on it."

Maverick please read this again.

People do pay taxes on land!!!

Again you talk about rights....You as a an united states citizen have Hunting Priviliges. Correct you can go hunt all you want. But you need to buy a lisc. and abide by the laws that protect that right. You can't just go out your back door and start piling up as many deer, bear, pheasants, ducks, eagles, hawks, etc.

Buying and owning land is the same thing. You have a right to buy land and own land in this country. But you have to abide by the rules that govern the land. Who governs the land....US GOVERMENT, STATE GOVERMENT, COUNTRY GOVERMENT, TOWNSHIP GOVERMENT, CITY GOVERMENT.

Again if you think the goverment owns the land....Why does the goverment have to rent land or pay for certain easments? Or why does the goverment have to ask for easments?

Again Sorry to hi-jack or turn away from the topic.

Chuck


----------



## MRN

This is what I saw.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlein ... DATE-1.XML

The commentary since last summer's failure was even more interesting than this latest failure.

M.


----------



## Gohon

> Well seeing as you started with the name


Maverick what is your problem? I never called you any names. Settle down, take your meds or what ever before you have a melt down. Oh, BTW.... you can sell your land to people from Canada, or Japan, or just about any other foreign country with very few restrictions.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Maverick.....

Gohon is correct you can sell your land to people from a different country. But not to that countries goverment!

Chuck


----------



## Gohon

I think Senator Conrad turned around and is trying to attatch it to another bill which is what this article is about....

http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles ... 124998.txt

Maybe they are both the same one............


----------



## Chuck Smith

Here is my deal with subsidies and why the goverment has them for farmers.

Let's look at the farming process. 
1. They buy a tractor and equipment.
2. They buy seed
3. THey buy fertilizer.
4. They buy weed control sprays
5. They plant the crop and take care of it
6. They harvest the crop.
7. They ship the crop to the elevator to dry.
8. They sell the crop.

Now in what I describe above you have about 6 different businesses involved with the farmer. Now if the farmer does not make money, these other people don't make money.

Farmers help out other aspects of the town. People who service the equipment, people who sell the seed, people who sell the fertilizer, people who deliver the seed and fertilizer, people who help the farmer, people who haul the grain, people who dry the grain, people who buy and sell the grain, People who haul fuel, people who sell equipment, etc.... Farmers help create other jobs. If a farmer goes bell up how many other jobs would be effected? That is why the goverment gives farmers payments and subsidies.

I don't like it either when a farmer posts CRP and what not. But that is his right. Cutting thier payments would only hurt our country.

Chuck


----------



## Maverick

> Maverick what is your problem?


 You are my problem. It seems whenever I chime in and give the opposite view as you, you ride on in!!!! Seeing as you know so much. Sorry I am not a politician, and it seems like you are, but I don't sit infront of a TV (or whatever you do all day) and watch the farm bill report, but I am working as I type. Ever think of that? Nope you are at home playing slap tag with yourself, getting your jollies off debating on a ND website.



> Settle down, take your meds or what ever before you have a melt down.


 More slander..Which you are full of! Actually through our discussions I can see an agenda in the lights. Have agreat day Captian Politician. Sorry bud but no melt downs here. If you would really like to see a melt down, we should meet up some day!

Yes Chuck, maybe I am a little far fetched but we really don't own the land in the long run. The goverment *can and will do *as they choose. Sure they will pay us for it but if they want it, they get it so in my eyes the land is the United States Of Americas, and I think alot of people have forgot that. We are one. Not indviduals. Our land is protected by the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Not the guns in our cabinets. That is something you all need to remember!


----------



## MRN

Chuck Smith said:


> Maverick.....
> 
> Gohon is correct you can sell your land to people from a different country. But not to that countries goverment!
> 
> Chuck


Chuck - 
Please explain why you would make the statement you did above?
There must have been a reason. What was it?

Perhaps this might help yous all out (Bob Kellam would have done this is a few minutes anyhow...)



> CHAPTER 47-10.1 AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNERSHIP BY ALIENS
> 47-10.1-01. Definitions.
> In this chapter, unless the context or subject matter otherwise requires:
> 1. "Agricultural land" means land capable of use in the production of agricultural crops, livestock or livestock products, poultry or poultry products, milk or dairy products, or fruit and other horticultural products but does not include any land zoned by a local governmental unit for a use other than, and nonconforming with, agricultural use, but does not include any oil, gas, coal, or other minerals underlying the land, any interest in minerals, separate from the surface, whether acquired by lease or otherwise, or any easements or tracts of land acquired in connection with the extraction, refining, processing, or transportation of minerals.
> 
> 2. "Interest in agricultural land" includes any leasehold interest.
> 
> 47-10.1-02. Restriction on acquisition - Exceptions.
> 1. An individual who is not a citizen of the United States, a citizen of Canada, or a permanent resident alien of the United States may not acquire directly or indirectly any interest in agricultural land unless:
> 
> a. The individual is an alien entitled to enter the United States under the provisions of a treaty of commerce and navigation between the United States and the foreign state of which the individual is a national, solely to develop and direct the operations of an enterprise in which the individual has invested or to direct the operations of an enterprise in which the individual is actively in the process of investing a substantial amount of capital;
> 
> b. The individual resides in this state for at least ten months out of every year;
> 
> c. The individual actively participates in the operation of the agricultural land;
> 
> d. The agricultural landholding does not exceed six hundred forty acres [258.99 hectares]; and
> 
> e. The agricultural landholding includes a dairy operation.
> 
> 2. An individual who is permitted to acquire an interest in agricultural land under subsection 1 shall:
> a. Notify the agriculture commissioner of any land acquisition within thirty days of the acquisition; and
> b. Annually provide the agriculture commissioner with a list of all addresses at which the individual resided during the previous year and the dates during which the individual resided at each address.
> 
> 3. If an individual ceases to meet the exceptions provided for in subsection 1, the individual shall dispose of the agricultural land within twenty-four months.
> 
> 4. A partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, trustee, or other business entity may not, directly or indirectly, acquire or otherwise obtain any interest, whether legal, beneficial, or otherwise, in any title to agricultural land unless the ultimate beneficial interest of the entity is held directly or indirectly by citizens of the United States or permanent resident aliens of the United States.
> 
> 5. This section does not apply to agricultural land that may be acquired by devise, inheritance, as security for indebtedness, by process of law in the collection of debts, or by any procedure for the enforcement of a lien or claim thereon, whether created by mortgage or otherwise; provided, that all agricultural land acquired in the collection of debts or by the enforcement of a lien or claim must be disposed of within three years after acquiring ownership if the acquisition would otherwise violate this section.
> 
> 6. This section does not apply to a foreign corporation or a foreign limited liability company which acquires agricultural land for use as an industrial site when construction contracts are entered into by the corporation or limited liability company within one hundred fifty days after acquisition of the land; provided, that this exception applies only to so much agricultural land as is reasonably necessary for industrial purposes. A foreign corporation or a foreign limited liability company which owns agricultural land for industrial purposes but which discontinues using the land for industrial purposes shall dispose of the land as provided by chapter 10-06.1. A foreign corporation or foreign limited liability company shall dispose of agricultural land acquired for industrial purposes within one year after acquisition if construction contracts are not entered into within one hundred fifty days after acquisition of the land.
> 
> 7. This section does not apply to citizens or subjects of a foreign country whose rights to hold land are secured by treaty or to common carriers by railroad subject to the jurisdiction of the interstate commerce commission.


M.


----------



## Chesador

Maverick,

Are you stiring this pot? Fun is fun but really! Most people learned what you are arguing against in high school social studies.


----------



## ADN

Maverick said:


> Who ever said they don't have the right to regulate it! If you are getting federal aid(the money comes from the public) to keep your land and don't let the public hunt it ( people who are paying your bills) I see a problem with that. All take and no give. Who is being the selfish one? I don't undstand your logic! If there is any?


Just because you don't understand something does not mean it doesn't exist. If this were true, then sh&t wou.... oh, no personal attacks.

You are saying their land should be open to the public for hunting. If so, what other uses should it be open to? Hunters make up a small percentage of the total population. So we would say that because farmers receive Federal subsidies from the general population, their land in ND is open only to hunters from ND? There are many other potential uses for that land if it will be open to the general public.

What dictates that it should be open soley for hunting? Because it benefits your own interests?

The fact of the matter is that farming is difficult, farmers get subsidies, and subsidies will continue to be part of farming. Land pressures will continue to rise.


----------



## Gohon

MRN, the comment was made that foreign citizens cannot buy US land. The answer was, yes they can with few restrictions. The restrictions you posted are for North Dakota as well as Minnesota, Iowa, and Pennsylvania as far as agriculture land goes. Those restrictions do not appear to apply to non agriculture land in North Dakota. Each state usually sets it's own limitations or restrictions on foreign citizens buying land in their state. Example, Nevada only limits the right to file mining claims to US citizens. Don't want to hijack the thread but the guidelines you posted covers only the four states I mentioned. The other 46 states have their on set of restrictions and guide lines. Maybe I missed something but I don't see where anyone was off the mark on the comment.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Since the thread has shifted, to the topic of payments and public use. Prior to the CRP program most conservation programs included limited public use such as hunting,fishing etc. We have some land in my home area that was in a 30 year wetbank program that is coming out next year. That land has changed ownership a couple times and one owner sold it after finding out he could not post it closed to hunting.

When CRP was first introduced the original intent was to allow limited public use. But the commercial operations in southern states lobbied hard to get this amended and did. They used the argument that such a requirement would limit enrollment or cause a huge disproportion of enrollment in states like ND and SD.

So for all I hope that you stop and think about the influence that the commercial hunting has and how it really has negatively affected ND as well as SD!

While Mav's points are valid, they are not the law and will not be changed so it really is a mute point to argue over.


----------



## tallgrasser

The thread has changed a little but I'd like to make a comment about the claim some folks are making that there's no place to hunt with a viable game population. I really like ND but have moved and I'm now a NR (one of the "Bad" people) The first week of Nov I hunted pheasants in the middle of ND for 1.5 days on public land, we found over 200 pheasants and did not see another bird hunter in that time. There was so much land to hunt we did not know where to start. I just don't understand comments that there isn't anyplace to hunt anymore. Hunting on some one elses land is not a right, it's a privledge that can be taking away. My $.02


----------



## Chesador

So perhaps if we all concentrated on expressing to our Congressmen and Senators that any CRP-type payments should include the requirement for "Limited Public Use". I know that would be hard to pass if it opposes the southern tradition on the "landed gentry" controlling everything. Down south one cannot lay foot on another man's property for any reason for fear of being lynched, especially if you are a Yankee like me!

We should remember that our country was founded for both freedom and economic opportunity. From Europe our ancestors left countries where a very few owned all the lands. Land was the economic engine at that time much as the stock market or inverting in real estate (turning over properties whenever the value increases significantly) is today. Serfdom in which the peasents belonged to the land and were as much of a commodity as the land itself was abolished only a few centuries before. In fact, Russia practiced serfdom until 1862. A form of sharecropping replaced serfdom because the landed gentry still owned the land. Only the French and Russian revolutions changed that. Just look at the results! After the cival war our government gave former slaves 40 acres and a mule so that they would have an opportunity to escape a life of serfdom. The Homestead Act seems as it served a similar purpose.

In the USA we have laws such as the death tax and higher income tax rates for the rich to redistribute the wealth. Without those forms of minor socialism in a few generations we would have a rich all-controlling upper class and a poor lower class. The middle class where most of us are would dissapear. One read much today of the "disappearing middle class".

What's the point of this rant? We can debate each other on our small forum but who besides us will care? But, if we can band together toward some feasible goals we might be able to influence our representatives in Washington. Just look at what the NRA and Ducks Unlimited accomplishes in Congress. Yes, I know we don't always agree with those organizations agendas but one has to admit that they know how to lobby Congress. If we as sportsmen want 21st century land usage reforms then we must band together as a unified voice; "No tax dollars without allowing limited public access!"


----------



## Bob Kellam

> Gohon is correct you can sell your land to people from a different country. But not to that countries goverment!
> 
> Chuck


There are exceptions, the embassies of foreign countries located within the U.S. are purchased by their respective governments.

Enough of that! this topic has followed most every other one that is remotely similar in substance and morphed into another pissing match that is usually directed into a stiff wind.

There is an easy solution to this debate. Hang a for-sale sign at every border entrance to ND and make ND into the pay hunting mecca of the world...OR we can all quit trying to one-up each other and start expressing our views to the people that CAN do something if enough people let them know how they feel.

Here is the link for the 2007 legislators/districts
http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/60-200 ... legis.html

Take the time it would take you to write a post on this site and drop your district legislators an email. They don't know what you want unless you let them know. If you do not want to get involved, feel free to continue the aforementioned exercise..... the wind is usually blowing in ND

Bob


----------



## djleye

MRN, THat is probably the best damn idea I have seen on this forum......EVER!!! Great call.

Love it Bob, SS, Different day!!! Today would be a good day, the wind is blowing good out there.


----------



## Dak

MRN,

Excellent idea!

"A softer approach is just to put a stop to renting land for hunting when also receiving subsidy payments for the land. Imagine renting the land for grazing while getting CRP payments. Uh Uh. Make it the same for hunting. No one would be forced to allow hunting on the land, but neither could they charge for access (e.g., the Alberta/Sask model). A few wild burrs would post their land forever and proclaim that a resident hunter would never set foot on it again - but you and I know these are just a few blow hards (some online) and do not represent the opinions of most of the farmers in ND. Heck, put 5 farmers in a room and you have 10 different opinions."


----------



## g/o

MRN, Noble idea but will not work, will only encourage more "soft" outfitting. For instance I charge for "lodging" and yes with this you are allowed to hunt my land. "If" you guys are serious, then the first thing you should do is try and get the rental rates up on CRP. As it stands right now if something doesn't happen we will only have 30% left if we are lucky.

If you guys want public access to CRP here is how you do it. There will be a new farm bill in 2007. As it stands right now as I said we will be lucky to get 30% to re enroll. Many were offered extensions last year including myself for up to 5 years at the same money. So the majority of us told where to shove it. When you sign land up for CRP it is scored, this is call your EBI score. It includes many factor's soil type, wetlands, etc. You can get extra points if you plant trees, food plots etc. This has been discussed before and that would be to give points for public access. I heard the reason it was shot down was because of liability?? This is the only way I can see you ever gaining public access to private land.


----------



## Norm70

> The federal aid is to keep the farmer in the business of feeding the country. It has nothing to do with hunting.......... hunting is a sport and gives you no right to the farmers land just because you pay taxes. About 70% of my property taxes goes to various school programs in my area. I don't have kids in school............ do I have a right to demand the school down the road allow me to us school property.......... I think not. What you really want is something for nothing at someone's else's expense. Get real.
> _________________


Gosh darnit Gohon I actually agree with you.



> Makes no sense to me, when we are the ones paying for the animals as well.


Maverick you right you do pay for habitat through licensing and other things, but do actually believe that animals that you hunt on private land you have alot to do with their well being? 
Remeber the winter of '97? The deer did not come to fargo, gf, minot for food handouts. They sat in feedlots and silage pile and basically made it their home for the winter, unless you seed the crop you do not have a large stake in the well being of the animal.

All i am trying to stress here is that, much like gohon said, Hunting, fishing, trapping is no ones right. Never feel you are entitled to hunt the land, fish the waters, or trap in sloughs. If it was your right all land would be public.

G/O, i don't know who you were talking to but you made a good point. Don't go ask for permission with a chip on your shoulder it makes all us look bad. Be glad for what you have. Fight for conservation and thank the people to no end that let you hunt. You never know when its going to end.


----------



## Bob Kellam

Norm

Article 1 of the North Dakota Constitution

ARTICLE I
*DECLARATION OF RIGHTS*
Section 1. All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.


----------



## djleye

> All i am trying to stress here is that, much like gohon said, Hunting, fishing, trapping is no ones right.


Wrong there Norm, We have the right to hunt, fish, and trap, we just don't have the right to go on "X" property to do so!!


----------



## gandergrinder

> unless you seed the crop you do not have a large stake in the well being of the animal.


If that operator purchases federally subsidized crop insurance or benefits from any of the other commodity support programs I do have a stake in that animal. I along with other tax payers are paying to feed it.

The farm program is really a wealth redistribution program whereby the those who pay higher taxes (wealthy or whatever you want to call them) pay to keep the food price low for those who pay less taxes (poor or whatever politically correct term you want to call them).

I do think we should include certain rights for the public on certain programs such as CRP or CSP if the public has to foot the entire bill. Which in those cases they do. One of those should be public hunting.


----------



## Norm70

Your right thats not what i meant. If you want go hunt public land. I will still ask to hunt on the private stuff well before i will compete with the crowds of public land.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Bob....

Your Article of delcaration talks about the right to bear arms. Not HUNTING!

Section 1. All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and *bear arms* for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for* lawful hunting, recreational*, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.

This all has to do with owning firearms.

Hunting is a privilege, not a right.

[/u]


----------



## g/o

GG, Not trying to be a smart *** but why just CRP?? Why not all of the land that receives a government payment? The corn people are getting a lot more per acre than I am. :huh:


----------



## Bob Kellam

Article XI

North Dakota Constitution

section 27

Section 27. Hunting, trapping, and fishing and the taking of game and fish are a valued part of our heritage and will be forever preserved for the people and managed by law and regulation for the public good.


----------



## gandergrinder

G/O,
As a taxpayer, I'm willing to negotiate for a better deal on my side of the equation for any federally funded program. :wink: I was just using that as an example.

However, the goal of conservation programs such as CRP is to conserve soil, and improve air and water quality. A benefit of those goals is increased wildlife populations. Shouldn't that wildlife, which is the result of the conservation practices that taxpayers pay for, be available to them.

I won't argue with you about the CRP contracts you signed in the past. Those contracts made no mention of public access to the wildlife. My elected representatives decided to design a program without those rights included. So in effect you the landowner and me the taxpayer signed a contract.

However, in future years I would like to see the contracts include public access. If you agree to the contract then we have a fair deal. If you don't agree than I don't get to access it. At that point it is still up to you. Enter into the contract and give up your right to stop the public from accessing your land or not.

Which brings up another question I have. Why do farm groups fight so hard for landowner rights and then argue against permanent easements for things such as grasslands or wetlands? If you have a willing buyer, shouldn't you be able to sell your land to them?


----------



## omegax

Would this be too draconian?:

Make it illegal to charge to hunt unless you're a registered outfitter, then limit the number of registered outfitters... I want to strike a balance here. I mean this is somebody's livelihood I'm talking about, but hunting is way of life for thousands of people around here. I really think there is a solution that works for everybody, and I'm just kinda brainstorming...

I think allowing hunting to become a rich man's game is going to harm people in the long run by cutting the number of kids taking up the sport. I can't blame people for trying to get theirs while the getting's good, but it's kind of like the Federal Reserve raising interest rates: cool it off now in favor of preserving long-term stability.


----------



## g/o

GG, Of course we disagree :lol: I see where you are coming from with public access to CRP. I would rather have it electable with getting extra points for it. If I choose not to allow public hunting and my neighbor does if both of our lands are borderline for acceptance his goes mine does not. Just a difference in opinion. As far as farm groups opposing wetlands and grassland easements. I haven't heard of them opposing some who wants to put it in as much as many object to land they bought that's in. I put easements on mine a couple of years ago under the new program where they pay you according to the value of such property. I was one of the first to apply and had a 6 month wait for the check. From talking to the boys now there is a long list of people trying to do the same.


----------



## MRN

g/o said:


> MRN, Noble idea but will not work, will only encourage more "soft" outfitting. For instance I charge for "lodging" and yes with this you are allowed to hunt my land.


I would never hold so low an opinion of my fellow North Dakotans. I feel that most of us are very good people. But then again, there are some exceptions, who already have it all worked out.....

M.


----------



## MRN

Dak said:


> MRN,
> 
> Excellent idea!


It really isn't my idea. It's the law of the land in one of the few remaining places that cherish what we all cherish



> 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.


We just have to get a version of that passed here.

M.


----------



## Chesador

I am for limited public access of lands funded by public monies but from G/O's last post, perhaps what is also lacking is funding. From someone's previous post what may be needed is higher payments for the lands. I don't know what the rates are but can easily conceive that some commodity groups, i.e. corn growers, would have stronger political lobbys resulting in an unbalanced payment systems. Boy, limited public access would never pass in South Dakota or the southern states. Any change of this magnitude will require a massive unification of sportsmen.


----------



## Dick Monson

The Wildlife Act of Alberta would make one heck of an initiated measure in ND.


----------



## jdpete75

Dick Monson said:


> The Wildlife Act of Alberta would make one heck of an initiated measure in ND.


Hell Ill not only sign the petition, Ill go door to door getting sigs for that one!! :beer:


----------



## g/o

> The Wildlife Act of Alberta would make one heck of an initiated measure in ND


So what are you waiting for? The legislature is about to meet try it there first. Get your boys from the NDWF to go to work on it, right along side the high fence initiative.


----------



## Dick Monson

g/o, hold that thought.


----------



## R y a n

Dick Monson said:


> g/o, hold that thought.


 

Now this just brought a HUGE smile to my face....

Thanks for cheering me up! ND hunting heritage may still have a fighting chance.

Ryan


----------



## HUNTNFISHND

There would be a few things that I would change in the Wildlife Act of Alberta though.

One being the stipulation that NR's have to use a guide to hunt certain game. That will only promote the o/g business.

If it was tweaked a bit I would definitely support it here.


----------



## g/o

HNF, I'm sure you will go along with the tresspass part of the bill also. You must have permission on all private land :wink:


----------



## HUNTNFISHND

> HNF, I'm sure you will go along with the tresspass part of the bill also. You must have permission on all private land


I would not have a problem with that. At least I know the landowner would not be able to stick his handout! 

By the way, most land in ND is posted anyway, and I always try to get permission first even if it's not. :beer:


----------



## MRN

Here's the version for Saskatchewan - they are much less wordy.
I do not believe the fine folks in Alberta and Sask are too much different from the fine folks of North Dakota - very similar values and mores. Alberta and Sask just realized sooner that those on the fringe need more guidance in such matters.

M.

http://www.qp.gov.sk.ca/documents/Engli ... W13-12.pdf



> Sale of Hunting Rights.
> 43. Subject to this Act and the regulations, no person shall, directly or indirectly, sell trade or barter or offer for sale, trade or barter the hunting rights for wildlife on any land. 1998, c.W-13.12 s. 43


----------



## DJRooster

It seems to me that if CRP payments are going to be increased by a large amount this will only serve to drive up the cost of land and increase the chances of land being bought for the sole purpose of hunting. It will help to save habitat and help game populations but I'm not sure it is a win, win situation. As far as creating more access I'm not sure if this is reality. However it will serve to keep more land in CRP. Because of the 15 year wet cycle coinciding with the CRP program our hunting has gotten better and so has the complexity of our problems. Quite frankly I have not run into any real problems as far as access but it is not easy to find a balance. Access has taken more effort but I feel fortunate to have been spoiled all my life living in North Dakota and growing up during the 50's and 60's when hunting wasn't nearly as emotional of an issue as it is today. It used to be that we used our scouting time to scout but now you must use a little of your scouting time to obtain access. I believe it is still a very doable situation for people who have the right style in there approach. This is a continuing trend and it is hard to say where it will lead. If you are going to just get in your car and drive 150 miles and show up to hunt it is not going to be as easy as it was 10 years ago but if you are willing to put forth an ongoing effort you can still have a quality experience. I too prefer the olden days but that is just not the reality of our situation.


----------



## prairie hunter

Many wealthy NR sport hunters paying $300/day to shoot 3 pheasants quickly figure out they can purchase land in ND. Many of these guys are sharp business men that realize it is an investment.

CRP does enable this to occur because of the cash payments from the federal government pays for the "grass".

Realtors that service the hunters actually use the CRP income as part of the economic calculation. They will publish the CPR contract terms in the ads.

I also know of many groups of ND residents that have pooled their money and purchased land in ND - some are on this site.

If the "local" farmers are becoming outbid on the land, well they or their neighbors contributed to the problem when they started charging "hundreds" of dollars to pheasant hunt.


----------

