# spiritwater owner on tonydean



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

look at this crap from the owner of spiritwater resort in devils lake...

http://www.tonydean.com/reports.html?sectionid=3437


----------



## Miller (Mar 2, 2002)

I think this shows how desperate the opposition is.They keep attacking people and keep avoiding why someone should or shoudn't support a bill.I think comparing ND hunters to PETA shows that clearly. I'm also surprised how fishingbuddy allows itself to be the home of the opposition, and be against freelance hunters. Another reason why I like it here where the future is worth more than a buck.

Just laugh it off and remember that business the next time you're in Devils Lake. But more importantly, stay active and write your legislators this week!


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Tony is not in favor of caps in ND and has stated this in earlier posts, however if a balanced and respectful response is sent, I do beleive it will see his board. Tony reads all the mail sent to him.

Remember that others from around the counrty read his web page so state your case with that in mind. Facts and good info will generate a better understanding than taking personel shots at Steve. Tony is his own moderator, and controls what goes on the board.

I do beleive that it should be properly reponded to.


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

Ya, We need to send a response to this.


----------



## Qwack (May 25, 2002)

I like Tony but had to laugh at him when he was on Ed's show a few weeks ago. He went on and on about how ND should not cap NR hunters. Someone called up and asked if that meant he thought the SD waterfowl NR caps should be abolished. He side-stepped the question (guess that means he is serious about entering politics!). Someone else called in and pressed him and he finally answered by saying "well I think the SD caps could be a little higher". Guess his opinion on NR caps depends on if he is a R or a NR :lol:


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Qwack, I was going to say the same thing! How can he criticize ND for wanting a cap when he's from SD and they have a FAR more restrictive cap compared to anything that's even been proposed thus far in ND? That's as hypocritical a thing to say as if someone in favor of a cap in ND said SD should have no caps. Then again, what else should we expect from DL's poster boy?...Or a guy who hunts strictly from guide services when in ND? Tony Dean is simply a pimp for a lot of guides. I wonder when the last time he came to ND and freelance hunted?


----------



## economics 101 (Jan 30, 2003)

Mr. Dean,

I know you are a smart man and will realize the above comments from Mr. Jones do not even come close to the feelings of most of the people in ND. You are a respected man and an expert in your field. We in ND do appreciate your work and love all the shows you do about our great state. Thanks for your effort on our behalf.

Matt Jones,

Not everyone enjoys going to a different state and being a freelancer. Ron's point about needing guides is right on. Just because Mr. Dean uses a guide does not make him bad. He just wants to get the best product he can for his productions and thus we can enjoy them that much more when they are broadcast.


----------



## Dean Nelson (Mar 3, 2002)

No I think Matt about sumed it up! Everything Matt said is true. 
economics 101
You do know Mr Dean is from ND and knows damn well where the birds are and could do it on his own with out any trouble!


----------



## Qwack (May 25, 2002)

Can you blame him though? He probably gets free guiding and lodging for promoting those outfits on his show. If I could make a living hunting and fishing with guides and outfitters in another state, I'd probably do it too. :wink:


----------



## tmorrie (Apr 1, 2002)

Matt Jones,
Your comments on Tony Dean are way out of line, ripping him is not going to help the cause. You obviously didn't hear the broadcast because Tony didn't really criticize ND for looking at caps, but rather said in the long run it might not be the best option for the future of waterfowling. If you've listened to him at all he's made it clear that he thinks the SD non-resident waterfowl limit is a joke.

When it comes to conservation, wetland protection, and solid hunting ethics, there is no better voice than Tony Dean. He will stand up to anybody when it comes to protecting the resource. Having tunnel vision on limiting non-residents and guides and getting upset about it seems to be so much easier than getting involved in the real issues like projection of wetlands and the Clean Water Authority Restoration Act of 2003.

Tim Morris


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

tmorie

I basically agree with what you say - I like & respect Tony for those same reasons - But because of his show & position in life - he is in bed with the commercial sides to all this - maily because, he has to be, to give his viewers the fast paced variety & quality of show - he has.

But I also wonder if it isn't t time to tone down the ND is Rightious & untapped paradise for hunters. - It sure is, if the next step is, to just become another Texas or Arkansas or Lousiana - Except those States are heavily populated year round - ND only grows in size, for a few weeks a year.

I really do think letting ND become a Pay to hunt - or Leased out exclusive hunt club - will further diminish & cause ND to lose even more of the brighter - better educated workers in the state, that do not have family connections back to huntable lands. & not just the Youth - I would guess the 20 & 30 somethings are the Biggest group in the Freelance Hunting group - Both Resident & Nonresident. Maybe a little older for Residents cause we are loosing youth & young adults at such a alarming rate.

It is so amazing how Hunters have stood up for Farmers, for the Bills that are so important to them - But yet it has been so hard for them, to learn & see what these Bills mean to us Freelance Hunters. I do believe it is because the commercial sides in all this, have purposely devised a campaign, to use hot buttons & topics to rally Landowners to become defensive.

But if the goal is personal profit from hunting - then were doomed. - But if you look, who is making the Big Money, from this group - not many are struggling Farmers.

If it is to help save their small towns & bring economic opportunity to their communities ??? So someone lives & comes there besides farmers ???Then they need to wake up & do things to promote Freelance hunting in their communities & regions. Because that is where the currant super majority of traveling hunters comes from - the ones buying gas & food & drink & lodging - But even this group can not continue to grow without some good management. - Find ways to spread them out across ND - there are virtually untaped areas in ND to hunt ducks. But the season is so short & even shorter if you are going to just let them all come at the same time & to the same few areas with good services.

I personally love to get away from the areas that are getting too crowded like Devils lake - Rugby - Lakota - Bottineau & eat & buy things in the real rural ND -

& in many ways that is what has happened in the last ten years - Residents have moved away from the heavily tourist / better services areas & areas that are becoming leased up & posted beyond belief (at least to us) - We have always known how, to get access, to posted lands - Not a new thing - Especially the better areas - But to see 20 or 30 trucks or more - out scouting the same areas every night - & seeing it become a competition & race to the birds, is not my idea of Fun. We Residents will lose in that scenerio - cause we will not play that kinda game - while most Non - Residents think it's great, compared to where they come from. Alot of these folks are not hunters - just want to kill / shoot something. For the money they have spent. So when they are successful - many tend to over do it.

I don't think Tony has had to expirence what we residents have the past 10 years - Even though he likes to make everyone feel he is a ND Boy & knows our State, as well as we do - he really doesn't :eyeroll:


----------



## spirit water steve (Mar 13, 2003)

Dear Friends,

Wow my rantings have struck some nerves. Thank you for expanding interest. The more folks who will participate in this discussion and the more we work together the better our future will be. Read the bill in question SB 2048 on the Discover ND website and see what it does, consider how it can be manipulated and what its consequences might be. After doing so please contact our legislators (whether you are a North Dakotan or not) and let them know how you would like them to vote and why. I believe thay are honorable folks who want what is best for all.

Quite a lot of name calling and hoopla has been bandied about with many personal attacks to go around. For any part in that I may have accept my apology. Nonetheless I strongly feel that SB2048 needs to be defeated. It is not a decent solution to our waterfowl situation. The last few years have been excellent in our area due to high water and therefore excellent habitat and production. It never dawned on me that folks would seek to impose participation restrictions in times of plenty, damaging the livelihood of me and my neighbors, and limiting the rights of our fellow Americans. Many residents (including myself) first came to North Dakota as visitng sportsmen. Teddy Roosevelt included. Some of us are making a go of it providing opportunities for many to work and play during the October waterfowl season. Investing to keep our struggling towns alive. I am not "getting rich" or "raping the reasource" in the process. God through his changes in the weather will take these opportunities change soon enough without micromanagement by a grossly flawed formula. Nearly all the customers at my lodge are what some call freelance hunters. They make their own access arrangements, just renting rooms from me, while spending freely in our cafe, bar, churches, groceries and gas purveyor. The little profit I have made from the hunting season is just enough to keep me in the black. I employ several residents, maintain and improve a number of otherwise vacant buildings and struggle to pay taxes. Our customers come because they perceive what we have to offer to be world class hunting opportunities. They plan often more than a year in advance what are often family reunion gatherings and club outings that focus more on comaraderie than shooting birds. I only ask that our slogan be allowed to remain true "Be ye bird watcher or bird hunter, all are welcome here."


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Spirit water you have made a choice and as I asked someone else to do please post a sign in your business proclaiming your nonsupport for quality hunting, and then let the chips fall where they may.This should be a great maketing tool. Trust in the same people you keep saying you are fighting for to support you in your business. This information should be provided for your patrons to be informed for them to make a fair decision.

I normally welcome people that move here to start businesses or to buy a business that may be closing or is just for sale. They tend bring with them new and fresh ideas' and have a idea of what it takes to be successful. Most have a business model designed to work with in the confines of it's enviroment. Most would not invest there livielyhood on a voliatle resource subject to the extremes that waterfowl experience. You have just brought the slash and burn mentality of money first and money second, beyond that nothing else matters.< This type of mentality is looked down on in our fine state.

Your attempt to apoligize is falling on a deaf ear in myself for I have read most of the the self serving, me only BS that you have posted on the Web. Most of the people fighting to get the proposed legislation passed are not doing it for themselves but for the next generation of sportsmen. 
s
Your use of Teddy Roosevelt is a insult to his name, this man established the NWR system that protected waterfowl and other endangered wildlife in the early 1900's. His long term vision keep many birds and animals from going extinct. The market shooter would have kept firing until no more waterfowl grace the skys. When I see a mallard circle a field I think of it's struggle and determination to continue what it ancestors had done for generations. You see dollar signs. I watch the fall migration of snow geese sand sandhill cranes, my heart goes into my throat and I try to imagine what it must have been like when only native americans walked these lands. You see dollar signs. This fundamental difference is what seperates us on this issue. I respect the wildlife I pursue and try and impart this to those that I hunt with especially the beginning hunter. Your statement of" in times of plenty" shows a lack of understanding of and a willingness to misinform about waterfowl numbers for monetary gain. All indications show that we are headed for shortend seasons and reduced bag limits, duck numbers are down,some species as much as 50% since the 90's and with the loss of wetland protection no long term indicators of anything but declines. Still you want to sell and sell and sell regardless of the resource. Enron style accounting at its best!

This debate is one of many complex issues that will affect all residents of North Dakota in some manner. The use of misinformation such as what you have spouted demonstrates that your interests lie only with you, as mine lie with what is best for all. I may not be correct on everything and my opinion may not match everyone out there, but I will not profit by trying character bashing. I have re-written this letter many times to curb my disgust and disdain, but go back under the rock you climbed out from under.

p.e.t.a [ people eating tasty animails] member in good standing,

Ron


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

To my fellow viewers please understand my anger and frustration in my last post, I in no way shape or form want my personal views to be read as those of this site or other posters. This is my opinion and mine alone on the above subject.

Ron


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Steve - I have met you - I have sent many people (NR's) your way (in the past) especially boat hunters & Big water hunters. I have ate in the cafe (when it's open) & bought lots of food / lunch items in your town.

I have admired how you, or your group (Investors) have taken all that old senior housing & old motels & other discarded housing & turned it into a viable business - with Minnewaken Flats as the main draw.

I would bet the vast majority are Freelance hunters - (Those that do not or will not Pay to hunt.) Plus I bet Fishing is a big part of your business ???

I wonder how many of you folks, that make a living off the Lake, would feel if the Native Americans won their Lawsuit claiming the Lake is theirs ??? & you got the word, you were not welcome to use it anymore ??? & you had to pay for access, that has been a given for many years ??? Imagine if they had a monopoly on the Lake - All the better parts were off limits, only to their customers at the Resort ??? For fishing spring - summer - fall & winter too ???

I have watched your area become terrible for Freelance Snow Goose Hunters. Both because they really don't use the area like they used to. & because the few places they do roost are controlled by guides.

How many of your customers really were turned away ??? I bet your pretty well booked during the 1st several weeks of waterfowl season. It was pretty late when we ran out of Licenses. (Imagine if there were lots of great areas, for Freelance hunters to come & use - & you had thousands of people who wanted to come there - every week thru out the entire season) instead of the vast majority all coming the same 2 or 3 weeks

What do you give back to waterfowl ??? & Fishing ???

Imagine if your community were to promote it's self as a ideal desination for the majority of Freelance Hunters ??? & not do so much to anger & alienate Residents ???

Why do you act as though we are not important to your business or future ???

Is it because the guides have also made you & your community think they are whats best for you ???

We understand the land is owned by private owners & we used to be able to make contact & show respect & be able to hunt alot of your area - Not nearly as much anymore - Mainly because you have choose to take sides with the few big $$$ guides in your area. (I bet they own significant amounts of your business too) ??? & have gone the route of doing all they can to make pay to hunt - the future of your town & region.

I truely believe if what you want is not based on personal profit - But were focused on doing whats best for the town (to survive) & prosper - & if You would meet as a chamber of commerce & see that promoting Freelance Hunting & having good management of the resources - based on the amount of huntable lands & accomadations in the area - would be so much more positive - rather than wanting a free for all - attracting folks to the area & then trap them into pay to play. 

I bet if you really studied how many use guides - you will find they are 1st timers to ND - most only do it to learn whats up & then come back as freelancers - bring with them more & more & more. When is enough enough ( leased land for guides - for an area ???) Especially when the area is so posted & you have done all you can to make it more difficult for freelancers to find landowners willing to share - Remember you are alienating both residents & Non Resident Freelance Outdoor Sports People - as well as many of the landowners in your area that despise what you are doing - (& many do) I have talked to so many that now just say no to everyone, because they are tired of all the hassles & politics & greed. - But alot of these folks really don't hunt - or really understand what all the problems & concerns are - & most do not realise there is another way to go in all this - that could be positive for the Super Majority of Hunters both Resident & Non-Resident hunters. That could make Minnewaken really special - even see services to the visiting outdoors folks expand & become really a great destination. By working with area / regional landowners to see the potential & do things to get them, to want to help, all enjoy the resources the area has to offer. Instead of a few trying to make it something most despise & hate to see ND become - Sure there has to be BIG Money potential to those few if ND becomes another Texas or Arkansas where everything is leased & pay to play. But the benefits to the majority would be significantly reduced & eventually you will find well over 90 % of the potential visitors won't be able to afford it - or can the weather be controlled & resources maintained (Which are owned & paid for & protected by tax payers & License buyers) How do you think you alone can sustain the quality of ND ??? If only a small percentage of people can & will participate ??? Do you think ND will do all it can & does for Fish & Wildlife if only a few Pay to hunt people are going to benefit ??? - The guides will be the ones helping & paying for Fish & Wildlife - RIGHT :roll: ???

You see we are at a crossroads, on where we are going to go with ND Outdoor expirences - If we lose, or nothing is done - it will continue to erode - where our chance of ever sharing what has been so great, about living in ND, is no longer worth living here for.

& the low paying jobs Commercial hunting & Pay to hunt will create - & will be available to those that remain - sure won't attract a new resurgence of folks, that want to move back to ND to pay expensive fees to be able to be sucessful.

I guess to many of you - the Buffalo Commons theory, is a good potential thing, for those that remain :eyeroll: But without a taxbase & people what kinda quality of life will remain ???


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

Fetch thanks for putting the feelings of many in the proper perspective, I have seen the demise of hunting evolve gradually , but now it is at a accelerated pace just because of the a few who are interested in their own personal gain. You are correct about NR learning the ropes on the first trip and then free lancing from then on. I would do the same myself and more power to them, most of them are working stiffs like the rest of us and cannot afford what the commercial interests want.. Thanks again


----------



## spirit water steve (Mar 13, 2003)

Thanks for the feedback Fetch. You have made a number of "bets." Some you would win. Some you would lose. If you would like to stand behind your words feel free to make me a buy out offer. I support all your possible suggested restrictions EXCEPT absolute limits on the number on the total number of folks allowed to waterfowl here. Why I am still responding to someone who tells me to "climb back under the rock I came from" is perhaps a worthy question. I am a Person Eating Tasty Animals and a Person for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and a Person for the Equal Treatment of all Americans. I have a great deal of respect for the Wildlife Refuge System initiated one hundred years and stand behind my belief that Teddy Roosevelt would be with me in standing up for equal treatment of all Americans.


----------



## spirit water steve (Mar 13, 2003)

Addoken and Fetch (moderator???) et al... It is precisely "the working stiffs" who would be damaged the most by SB2048, whether they are from Fargo or Moorhead. An analysis of my customers has been suggested. Less than 2% of my waterfowling guests currently employ guides and make formal pay for access hunts. The rest come from all over the country including North Dakota for the world class hunting opportunities we currently enjoy. All are welcome here. It is precisely such modest income groups of family and friends that don't have the time or means to buy their way in to a few available liscences and can't plan way in advance that are (and were last year already) unable to come on last minute trips because all the available liscences are sold. As for me I will adjust myself to whatever happens. I hope we can celebrate our similarities instead of seeking alienation according to differences. The future of our heritage and freedoms are in the balance.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Spiritwater Steve....How can you be sold out a year in advance but they don't have the forsight to buy that waterfowl license in advance and they couldn't come because they were sold out. If someone has a lodge reservation that far in advance but they want to buy their license at the last minute, I just don't feel too sorry for them. Sorry!! Sounds like poor planning to me, either that or your argument doesn't hold water!


----------



## goosehtr4life (Dec 16, 2002)

Last year several of my friends that hunt waterfowl were not able to because of the cap system. The reason is they did not find out about it and did not buy a license in advance. Obvisouly in the future they will not make that mistake. But last year was the first year of the caps. So I do not think you can blame people for that.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

I humbly disagree Ghunter. Poor planning means poor execution. The people who did there homework are exactly the class of people we want coming here, the class of poeple who do not agravate landowner damage issues. If someone cant even read the rules for what you need to do to waterfowl hunt in ND, then they did not deserve a liscence.


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

Spirit Water:

Well I can't believe that you are actually man enough to come onto this site. Kudos to you, especially since you appeared to be the type of guy who liked to hide behind sites that like to censor anybody that has an opinion that goes against those people shelling out the big advertising money (e.g., yourself).

Since I am a non-resident, I have a couple of quick questions for you. 
1.) Please explain to me how the implementation of no cap limits will ensure a quality hunt when I make my trip to ND. Better yet define a "quality hunt" for me.
2.) Please describe a successful business model that pays zero money for their primary overhead.
3.) Please explain to me how you can bash NDGF for their imodel on waterfowl hunting but say nothing when it comes to their implementation of fishing limits.
4.) Please explain to me what rationale you are using, other than the blatantly obvious reason- money, to say that no limits on waterfowl should be in place. 
5.) How much and what did you give back last year to the hunting or fishing resource that you profit from?

Lastly, thanks for the huge guffaw with respect to you and Teddy Roosevelt. I live in California and I am pretty confident that I heard Teddy Roosevelt roll over in his grave.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

"tremendous response" for 700 signatures? You're kidding. 440 registered guides and outfitters. They couldn't even get all their spouses to sign.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Just what I thought when I read it Dick once again we see misinformation.

Keep up the good work of providing valuble information.


----------



## Hotel owner (Jan 10, 2003)

I am sorry, I have to respond. It is a little difficult to read at times. I am also a business owner who feeds my family in part by renting beds to hunters, mostly nonresident hunters. My business is not related to so much waterfowl as it is pheasants and sharptails. At a time when I am trying to promote the early sharptail season to nonresident sportsman we get purposed legislation to time limit upland hunters. Why? Quality hunting? I don't think so. I think the quality in hunting should be defined by the person doing the hunting and not a third party! And if you argue that we are only one bad winter from bad hunting then it is even more important that the land be nurtured to provide habitat to get the birds through the winter. When the land owner has a fiscal interest in keeping the birds on his land then he will make decisions in farming practice that reflect that. Leasing then means better habitat which means better hunting. I must also say that it is a little bit provocative to listen to people say that if we don't keep the hunting opportunities the same then more people will leave ND. Well people have been leaving ND since 1933. I don't think it has to do with the hunting!

Also, I read about nonresidence purchasing bigfoot decoys at $100.00 for 4, new automatic 12s and such but ohh no don't talk about payed access. It is true that the game belongs to the state but it is raised and nurtured by the farmers. Many of these farmers are not is very good fiscal health. Extra income from leasing can be the difference between making it or losing the farm.

I came to ND after hunting here several years as a nonresident. I found a way to make a living and stay close to what I love. I do lease some land. I am also looking to purchase some land for hunting. I also hunt places that give me permission. I also give permission to hunt. I have some relationships with guides - because some customers ask to be referred to guides. These are good people. If more money was put into PLOTS lands then maybe leasing would not be needed. It would certainly make it less needed.

Okay now I will brace myself for the name calling, God forbid anyone express and idea that doesn't overtly support those who


----------



## Tony Dean (Mar 13, 2003)

I don't really have the time to get involved in lengthy arguments over who's right and who's wrong on the entire issue of non-residents.

However, I do want to defend myself. If any of you think I can't find my way to birds on my own, you're mistaken. I just reviewed my last ten years in North Dakota and found that I used guide services or hunted with them 8 times. The balance of the time, I freelanced, something I've been doing for some 34 years in North Dakota.

On some occasions, I've used the guide service to gain access to specific land that I wanted to hunt. On others, I wanted to hunt with the guide because his expertise was a factor in the storyline.

Example, I hunted with Gary McCree, an Illinois guide, in North Dakota, because he was a world champion caller. He was not guiding me. We scouted together. I hunted with Randy Bartz, the Flagman, on Dean Kersten's land near Bottineau. The land and bagging geese was less important on that story than how to effectively use flags.

Over the past three seasons, I've used guide services twice on five hunting segments in North Dakota. Once with Mike Schell and John Devries on my first and only spring snow goose hunt. If you know me, you know I won't be hunting spring snows again for countless reasons I've often written about. And, I hunted with Mike Schell when I did a show with Dr. Norm Seymour on his new book, "The Education of a Duck Hunter." The storyline dealt with Norm and his book.

The truth is, Mike Schell, Kyle Blanchfield and John DeVries are among the most skilled goose hunters I've ever known and each is worthy of a story. You may not like what they do, but you don't win by demonizing any of them.

And I do not apologize for using any of their services. Over the years, each has helped me produce a TV show that's won more awards than any in the industry...and, I modestly add, has attained the highest ratings.

Do TV shows get the guide service and/or lodging free? If you mean, are they charged for either, they are not. Mine is no exception. However, it isn't free since I buy all of the television time on the stations and cable systems we air on, and it isn't free. Face it, there isn't much in this world that is completely free.

Along the way, I have campaigned for saving wetlands and grasslands one helluva lot more than any TV show I've seen. My radio show has functioned int he same way and so have my magazine articles.

I wish, for example, I could have had your help during the recent grassland battle. Do any of you realize what was at stake and how a handful of wealthy landowners won a big battle over the silent sportsmen? A battle that will cost greatly in years to come because they'll be turning fair public hunting land into poor public hunting land.

Do you realize that you could stop wetland drainage overnight if you got as excited over it as you do over non-residents?

As for those who suggest I look the other way on South Dakota, you're wrong again. I protested South Dakota's ill-advised caps many times over the years.

And if anyone thought I was back pedaling when on Eddie's show on KFGO, you either didn't hear what you thought you did, or you took out of it what you wanted to take out.

You criticize Steve Scheel for worrying about the impact on his business but it's _his business _that's at stake, not your job security.

You criticize Steve at Minnewaukan because he's worried about his living...but it's _his_ that's at stake, not yours.

You criticize Kyle Blanchfield because he's worried about his business, but it's _his_ that's at stake, not yours.

You criticize Randy Frost of the DL Chamber for doing his job. You may not agree with what his job entails but he does it well. And I like and respect Randy. I've hunted and fished with him and we didn't use guide services. Randy's a very knowledgeable duck hunter who grew up on divers and he knows how to find and hunt them. He has been quietly urging commercial operators to resist leasing and learn to hunt big water.
But he also has a responsibility to _his_ employers and shouldn't be demonized for that.

Yes, hunting's changed in North Dakota and none of us, myself included, like all of the changes. Is it harder to freelance in areas with guides and outfitters? Yes, it is. And _capping non-residents won't change that_. It didn't in South Dakota with only 4,500 licenses.

And during all the years when SD allowed NO non-residents, it was no easier to get on the good goose land. It was leased by the _wealthiest residents._

And I know some of you think that "establishing relationships" is a trite and overused line, but it isn't.

I'll give you an example.

Dave Trondson of the Perch Patrol has been a friend of mine for about 17 years. We met while ice fishing at Devils Lake. well before he joined the Perch Patrol.

I've hunted Dave's land on more than a few occasions and two falls ago, called him on my cell phone on the way up. He told me his bird numbers were down, though a week earlier, there were lots of ducks on his farm.

I got there, checked into a motel, and at his urging, drove out to his farm. He was right and we ended up finding a bunch of ducks some 25 miles north of there. I found the landowner, asked permission and it was granted.

Later, Dave and I talked and I noticed that he had posted his land, even though he doesn't hunt. So I asked him why.

"Well, my son hunts and so do the grandkids," he answered, "and I just figured I'd give them the first chance."

I asked, "What if someone drove up and asked permission to hunt, would you give it to them?"

"Oh sure," he answered, "I've never turned anyone down."

So, I asked, how many have asked for permission so far this season?
(It was the fourth week in October)

"You're the first one," he answered.

Thanks for your time folks and let's all work together for the maintenance of quality fishing and hunting in the Dakotas...something that's only going to be possible if we retain our wetlands and our grass. Both will ensure clean water.

Tony Dean


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Tony...nice to see you made it over to this site.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Tony, you can let your hair back down now. We want the same things, we're heading at it different ways. I remember the grasslands fight this summer when the NDWF was pitching hard and the same commercial hunting lobby that you mention was against the new grassland plan. Also the ND Farm Commercial Hunting Bureau and the Stockmens Asc. against it. Strange allies. When those ranches by Medora wanted to sell to the park service, those three groups fought tooth and nail, (couldn't see any value to tourism), but when it's money in their pocket then they are all for tourism. Funny how it works, horray for me and the *****with everybody else. Excuse me, I don't think so.

This fight over 2048 is a political problem and it will be solved politically, because some of our state leaders abdictated their responsibility years ago. Wildlife is a public trust, and if a PRIVATE BUSINESS wants to skim the cream from a public resource, they better be ready to take the heat. If there is no compromise it can only get hotter. We freelancers were told for the last 10 years to turn the other cheek and everything would fix it's self. Weather, economics, etc. Didn't happen. Got worse. Now somebody else can turn the other cheek. We aren't sliding over anymore.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

1 Corinthians 15:33 - 
Do not be misled: "Bad company corrupts good character."
or 
Be not deceived: "evil communications corrupt good manners."

M.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Hello Tony -

I see your kinda riled ??? But in General most here have been actually kind - in their assessments of the Commercial sides.

I think Chris lets me be moderator, to keep a reign on me  Cause I have been very nice in explaining what I think & feel.

After having Hunted ND as much as anyone, in the last 30 years - & yes I even was a guide for SOB's for awhile. Even then, the true commercial side tried all it could to make the small operator - not be able to compete. & to say that some of the ones, you say we demonize - Don't do it to us would be LAUGHABLE if it were not so SAD. They have been totally disrespectful of our positions & don't care what they say or do to forward their goals.

The last 5 years I mainly hunt ducks (for FUN)

If you don't think Guides & Leasing have hurt ND & have taken more than they deserve. & could careless about the average Resident or Non Resident Freelance Hunter - then you have not thought the situation thru completely ???

(IN fact one of your friends you mentioned & praised - flat out turned me down, on two occasions the last couple of years - to hunt ducks on land he had posted & never even knew it & I thought I was a good customer of his resort ??? :******: - Right there, I lost all respect for the man - Cause he told me "he has to save everything he has, because he is a commercial operator")

I could give many more examples of no longer being able to get access to areas where SOB's feed or land, in recent years (& trust me I have used every possible NICE way to get permission- other than PAY) - so much so - I will never hunt them here again (except Spring & you & I have disagreed on that subject for years now) I now go to Canada to hunt SOB's & would advise anyone to do the same - There is no comparsion (NONE) Canada is like ND was 30 years ago.

I quit Pheasant Hunting out west for the same reasons - See past posts on all these things.

Nothing Personal - But you cannot be an objective - respected source of what this is all about. Because for the most part you & your show have been the regional sales pitch / biggest advocate of Commercial Hunting. & a big part of why ND is now becoming, like so many other States. While I have been a Fan & enjoyed your shows. We no longer need the advertising.

Not unless the desired goal is to be like SD for Pheasants & Arkansas & Texas for waterfowl.

You really think the job security of those you mention - is of any concern of ours ???They are taking advantage of a Public Trust & (ND is a Right to work State & has Employment at Will) - some of those guys should seek real jobs & viable businesses - & don't we have the right to decide who should be supported, based on their politics & public displays of how they feel or think - or not) When less than 5 % of the licensed Hunters use guides & these guys & have been doing all they can to SPIN how they are Good for ND & small towns ??? for the past several years. It may have worked two years ago - & May still be a significant rival this time - But I hope elections & the ability to hear all sides & Better ideas - can change that.

What if another approach were tried to attract the real 95% (plus) of real hunters, to their towns & regions & manage how many can be in anyone area at one time - without it being a free for all - or the guys with Big Bucks getting the best areas & the rest of us should just sit back & watch it happen ???

I'm disappointed you only are defending the commercial sides in all this - But not surprised :eyeroll:

Sites like this that allow real conversations (That are not Censored - as long as you follow the rules) are kinda a breath of fresh air, for getting out the truth & allowing us a way to work together to catch up & maybe even get ahead of the commercial sides to all this.

Tony what do you think, the well respected folks, that work at the G&FD, think about all this ??? (Not the Director - he has become part of the problem) Have you asked them ??? & the Wildlife Society ??? (alot of very knowledgeable folks there too)

& what is even sadder is - If we were to get a new Director to our G&FD - what type of person do you think our Govenor would put in there ??? Same as we got to chair the Natural Resources Committee ??? (Mr Nelson) - Is he a buddy of yours too ??? & then top off all of this with the Apathy & those that don't care or have a clue except what SPIN is spread by the media - (Which many have not been fair) for the same reason many Non- Residents don't like any of what we wish for - which basically comes down to greed & personal (how does it effect me) & I don't want any changes - cause ND is better than anywhere else & I want a part of it :roll:

Were just trying to keep it that way (Better) a while longer :-?

PS ......I thought of you when I bought a Fly rod at Kmart in Fargo last weekend (my 1st) & I have gone overboard on perfecting everything else I have ever tried :roll: - Big K was going out of business -sale- everything was 50 % off - I hope to get into the white bass on DevilsLake & try it out


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

& as far as the best Goose Hunters around :roll: I could pick three guys from here & smoke those spoiled boys on a true SOB hunt - say in Sask. Where everyone has to Freelance & all are equal - They have had a Monolopy on their hunting areas in Prime SOB country (At least in the past) Most of us had to take their seconds, or scout & find other out of the way places, to hunt them. & being mobile is the Key.

Unless you have corn fields that are being used late in our season & then anyone could go out & hide in a field & shoot some geese.

If you throw enough money into something your bound to be more successful - But is that true Hunting ???

One more thing - I thought the idea in recent years was to let Hunters thin the flock of SOB's as a conservation order ??? All the guides have done is make this harder for the 95% of real hunters that won't pay them to guide them :roll: - All the leased land in the few areas the Geese use has hurt this goal


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

Tony:

First of all it is a pleasure, but with all due respect, I disagree with your contention that it is _their_ business. As you aware, citizens via the public trust doctrine hold all wildlife resources in perpetuity. Based on these inherent, sovereign principles, all the citizens (read no commercial entity) are holders of the trust and anybody degrading or destroying the resource can and shall be held accountable. It has taken years, but the sportspeople have finally figured out their inherent rights respective to the doctrine and have banded together and voiced concern and opposition over the degradation of the resource by commercial interests. And, as holders of the trust, they have a voice via legislation to empower the doctrine to proclaim and limit those that are degrading the resource. Exactly what this legislative session is all about.

As I have said numerous times on this board, please name one other successful business that pays no money for their primary overhead item. The point being you can't, yet this is exactly how guides/outfitters operate. So here is my question, how can a commercial hunting operation legally profit from the direct taking of a public trust resource? I don't know your answer, but I do know my answer and in very simplistic terms&#8230; MONEY. Money collected off a wildlife resource (that requires no overhead) that is held in the public trust, which I am a stakeholder. And you say that this is _their_ business and I shouldn't be concerned. I disagree whole heartedly, because these commercial entities are allowed to degrade my trust resource in the name of money, then spin doctor the issue as economic development, which is nothing more than seasonal tourism dollars in disguise! So when you say it is _their _business not mine, you are incorrect, because you have overlooked one simple fact; I have ownership over that resource. So actually it is _my_ business.

Sorry Tony, but the commercial entities are paying money to advertise on your shows, so your defense of _their_ business is highly biased.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Bioman,

Again, thanks for making things clear in this debate. Your perspective has been invaluable in making sportsmen more aware that this IS OUR business - the resource is something that belongs to all of us. I, for one, appreciate your use of reason to assuage the insincere, and ill-informed, rhetoric.

M.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

bioman, in hindsight we should have UPS'd you to Bismarck and superglued you to a couple legislators on the HNR committee. What a perfect post! Am sending you a pm.


----------



## Hotel owner (Jan 10, 2003)

Clarification. Isn't the resource the wildlife. NOT the activity of the hunt. These bills address the activity of the hunt. The concern over the resource is about Quality Hunting. Hunting activity is not owned by the state. If the state of North Dakota wants to limit hunting of anything due to the inability of the resource to withstand the pressure then I believe the state has the right to do that. However, under a new argument, the ninth court concluded the state does not have the right to limit the activity of hunting to benefit it's self over other states. Just like North Dakota can not sell wheat to Minnesota at a higher cost then to residents of North Dakota. Whatever new legislation may be passed if it limits commerce then it will be challenged sighting the Ninth Circuits decision. As I understand it, most states already are acknowledging that although they hope to overturn the decision of that court, it is a higher standard.

The focus on the states right verses federal law is what was tested in the Arizona case in the ninth district. As I understand it, this is the distinction that was made. It was a new distinction in the law. The state has the right to manage the resource but not restrict the economic activity - Hunting. Unless the state can prove that limiting nonresident hunters relates solely to the management of the resource then that practice is unlawful restriction on commerce.

Many an argument here is presented to be one of principle. Free trade and commerce is also a principle. I don't think that many here would argue about the economic impact of hunting and fishing.

And just to be fair, what the guide sells is a service for a hunter. Not the game. Securing access is part of the service.

I am interested in what will happen when and if this gets tested in N.D. It may have the effect of pulling interests together. I would hope it lead to new strategies of securing public access that benefit farmers, and ALL hunters, and local businesses.

Just a thought.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Hotel, the game law is set by the state, and if changed, it will be changed by the state, read the voters. If game cannot be sold, why does Cannonball pay the farmers on a per bird basis. After a Cannonball hunt, the guide counts the pheasants, marks his book, and the farmer is reimbursed at $17 per rooster harvested. Thats why the outfitters in SW ND love to hunt public land. They save $51 per hunter every day. I thought there was a pickey little law about that; maybe it does't apply to Cannonball what with the political contributions and all.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Hotel owner,

Perhaps you should become more well informed. Here is a primer for you: http://www.responsiblewildlifemanagemen ... ctrine.htm

Check out the 1896 supreme court ruling - Greer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 (1896) - it essentially disagrees with everything you say. The 9th circuit opinion means nothing here, and given the precidence of Greer, never will.

Moreover, consider the Lacey Act which says: It is deemed to be a purchase of fish or wildlife in violation of this Act [16 USCS §§ 371 et seq.] for a person to obtain for money or other consideration-- guiding, outfitting, or other services; -- for the illegal taking, acquiring, receiving, transporting, or possessing of fish or wildlife.

Interpretation - it ain't "a service" if you screw up.

[/list]


----------



## Hotel owner (Jan 10, 2003)

MRN, It is nice to see that you are interested in my education. I am however confused, did you read the references you provided in me in your attempt to patronize me (means to talk down to)? And although I am not a Lawyer, and I do understand that the ninth court has no jurisdiction over North Dakota, as I tried to state, I believe it will be SITED as a president in a NEW lawsuit filed against caps in states like North Dakota if caps are implemented. Then, in case you are wondering the state court will rule then it may be appealed to the Fifth District (I think), then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court refused to hear the Arizona case but in all likelihood would hear the case if it was confronted with two different federal courts handing out different rulings. The unique issues in the Arizona Case was that the free commerce law was used to overturn the state law. 
Maybe you should admit that You are not anymore better informed then anyone else - if you can - it might hurt a little&#8230; or maybe a lot.
Your reference that you may want to read again for the first time:

v In 1976 the Supreme Court decreed that federal authority may be superior to that of the states in some wildlife management situations but the extent of the authority remains unclear. [8] This relatively undefined aspect of the ongoing public trust doctrine debate is an area likely to draw additional consideration by the courts over time because of the broader states rights versus federal powers (and related issues) debates.


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

-..


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

i don't want that to be our president!!! i think george w. is doing a fine job anyways.


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

sorry, couldn't resist that one, i think you were looking for the word precedent


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

The ruling by the Supreme court not to take action in no way shape or form indicates the stance of the Court on this issue. More times than not they allow an issue to go back be challenged in a different venue or or interpitation on a rule of law, and a different ruling from a different court brings the matter to the Court where do to different or opposing opinions they then will step in. You are correct in that manner. The challenge to the rulling simply was not taken up at this time. The District court that this came from has the highest rate of Supreme court reversals or modifications. The greatest percentage on state and personel rights. All that being said, many times one law will be thrown out as unconstitutuonal, because of language that conflicts a states constitution, or our federal. In another state a law with the same intent, but different language will pass both tests.

The need for this law is evident, and the opponets of this law have a single minded issue in its promotion. Money! Ours is a holding pattern in a quality of life. You want a guarentee of a steady stream of customers, I want a guarentee of a quality outdoor experince. You promote yours as a asset and a need I do also. The choice will be to see how the elected officals view this issue. The need to bring a resolution to sthis issue is now, it will only get worse. The backlash of doing nothing will be felt deeper and swifter than on any single issue that has been dealt with in this state in the past.

Many who have had unchallenged opposition will see many that have been loyal supporters seeking out others to give that support. If this issue cannot reach a compromised resolution, the next ime around it will have a bigger and deeper bite that many are first starting to understand.

I understand your view, I just think mine is more the way the state should go and stay. We will have many issues over the next months and years as our country prepares on the eve of war. We know not the final outcome, but the single most important principal that has stood heads above the rest is that the good of the whole out weighs the wants of a few. Your way only helps a few.

Please make sure and post a sign in your place of business stating your position on 2048 so that the patrons really know who they are doing business with. Your views indicate that it should be a good marketing plan. I have chosen not to use a screen name for promotion of my views, I am proud to defend them, win lose or draw on this issue I will hold my head high and I will deal with any repercussions that may come my way for those views. You have nothing to lose and everthing to gain by staying behind your vail.

If you believe so strongly in what you say remove the vail. My dislike for tactis used by Spiritwater Steve aside, he still has the B333's to not hide from his identity. for that I give him credit.

The 1976 ruling had to do with endangered species and that authority may expire if the endangered speicies act is not renewed or is modified next time around.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

I'll be the first to say that I am not as well informed as many of the fine folks here, but that still doesn't excuse you. I am glad that you are now aquainted with the public trust doctrine, Greer, and the Lacey Act. They do disagree with all of your earlier post.

So, now, how are these ideas affecting ND? Consider: Constitution of North Dakota "ARTICLE XI- GENERAL PROVISIONS - 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."

North Dakota Century Code, " 20.1-01-03. Ownership and control of wildlife is in the state - The ownership of and title to all wildlife within this state is in the state for the purpose of regulating the enjoyment, use, possession, disposition, and conservation thereof..."

I don't see the principles of "greed", personal monetary gain, free-trade, or economic development mentioned anywhere therein. 
(ND is within the 8th circuit).

m.


----------



## Hotel owner (Jan 10, 2003)

Thanks for your response Ron. It gives me things to think about.

MRN, I still don't get why you think that post makes ever point invalid in my earlier post. I guess I just don't get it.

Thanks for clarrifying the 8th district and the information concerning the state constitution - I was not aware of the specific language.

I do think this might be a significant issue in our future. But then again I could be as wrong as you believe I am.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

I am at a loss as to why you can't understand it. The applicability of the commerce clause is total BS (see rationale CITED above). One year ago, the idea would have been deemed ludicrous - the 9th's recent opinion doesn't change that. They used the commerce clause because it is the only tool available to a federal court when it seeks to usurp a state's autonomy and soverienty.

M.


----------



## Dano2 (Oct 8, 2002)

Heh, Heh, Tony dean, great man, watch his show every Sunday,
well, ALMOST anyway.

When Tony came in and posted it kind of reminded me of that old movie,
"OH God" when george burns plays God, and towards the end, he finally shows up in court.


----------



## spirit water steve (Mar 13, 2003)

Hello Folks:

Just a quick note of the thanks to our Benson County Commissioners. They chimed in recently with a resolution urging DO NOT PASS on SB 2048. Also a thank you to Tony Dean for taking the time to post here. I have only met him briefly. It is heartening to watch his shows and follow his deep conviction to our land and outdoor heritage. All are welcome here..


----------



## spirit water steve (Mar 13, 2003)

view the Benson County Commisioners Resolution on SB2048 and contact information using the following link:

*( steve - I don't know if Chris is around or not - but I'm calling your link spam ) Fetch *

Thanks for reading and seeking to comprehend. Your friend in Minnewaukan.


----------



## catman (Dec 19, 2002)

I AM SURE YOU WOULD AGREE STEVE AND YOUR COMMIONERS WOULD AGREE WE NEED TO PRESERVE WATERFOWL AND FISH HABITAT. SO LETS ALL GET BEHIND THE FOLKS THAT WANT TO STOP THE DEVILS LAKE OUTLET. DO NOT DRAIN HABITAT.


----------

