# more tony...



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

i see tony has mentioned this site alot recently, along with the people posting on this site. doesn't look to kindly upon us. u can check out some of the articles here. Just look for the topics where he labels people selfish... i say get your own laws changed before you speak anything to another state's legislature like he did...

http://www.tonydean.com/issues2.html


----------



## duck991 (Feb 17, 2005)

I live in minnesota and i really am getting sick of tony running his mouth over and over i do like hunting in nodak but i don't like how over exposed it's getting and i worry that your state will be ruined just like every other state along the map.This may seem a bit strange coming from a non-res but if i grew up in nodak i would be ****** to i have to defend my hunting spots every day because most of our duck hunting locations are on public land all the small lakes i used to hunt on are surrounded with new houses owened by people just like tony dean. :******:


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Tony Dean Outdoors
Issues
Selfish is as Selfish Does

Hey Tony,

Good on ya for your views of the NoDak situation. That, and your realistic understanding of the boys on the NoDakOutdoors website.

The bottom line on every thing they talk about and every thing they push for at meetings revolves around having their cake and eating it too with no competition from NRs.

Let's see&#8230;

You choose to live in Fargo, (never venture to the country except to play) consider yourself a goodolboy resident and hunt unimpeded anywhere you please with no competition from anyone else?

You have no qualms about owning lake property in Minnesota or at least going to Minnesota to fish the whole season on a license which costs what amounts to chump change. Minnesota isn't crowded? North Dakota is?

You don't want to see leasing or buying or posting of land because it infringes on your god given right to hunt like it was 1950? Never mind that mobility and technology, not to mention burgeoning population everywhere but North Dakota has made the game a lot different that it was even 15 years ago.

You are more than happy to use the wildlife dollars generated by anyone in the US who pays taxes or buys a duck stamp but you sure as heck don't want them in your state hunting that same habitat.

You overlook the fact that many of the landowners (you know&#8230;the people who actually paid for the land you claim hunting rights to) actually prefer to let NRs hunt rather than "City Hunters" from Fargo etc&#8230;

(There are signs in NoDak saying "Non Resident Hunting Only". And "No Fargo Hunters".)

You want the small towns to thrive but you push for fewer NR hunters which is about all that many small towns have going for them any more.

You push for more zoning restrictions against NRs but when the issue of zones for residents comes up, the world is ending and your reasons are exactly the same as those of NRs who don't like zones.

You lament that there are fewer resident hunters but spend all your time and energy fighting for more room instead of trying to get to the bottom of why out state Nodak can't maintain a population.

You make the restoration of wetlands and waterfowl populations in other states sound like a piece of cake even though the only reason you have what you have is because of geography, acts of God and a poor farm economy not because of anything you did.

Tony, I just wanted you to know that I appreciate your views as a former resident of NoDak and a realistic resident of SoDak.

Name Withheld by Request


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Tony:

There have been a many shots across the bow lately due to some legislation to create more waterfowl zones for non residents and to attempt to match the hunters and the resource with some semblance of reason. The bill HB 1422 failed by the way. My question to all who have chosen to make this issue into the mammoth that it has become is: With habitat vanishing due to many extraneous factors, how long will it be before all, resident and nonresident hunters have nothing to hunt? This scenario may not happen in my lifetime, however, my hope is that there will be future hunters to follow in our footsteps if we don't screw it up for them. Have we turned into such a me first society that we can not see the train coming as we sit on the tracks? many think that we are selfish, because of the residents only part of these hunting issues, or the fact that many of us advocate some conservation minded ideals.

South Dakota took the conservation route may years ago by limiting nonresident waterfowl hunters to 4,000+ total. I do not recall the public outcry about South Dakota being selfish with its stance on waterfowl hunting. This also appears to be a nice benefit to South Dakota resident hunters. I do not know of another state that I hunt that does not have a sector of their hunting laws that caters to residents only, please correct me if I am wrong. We have had our discussions in the past and I think that the phrase "it's habitat" can answer many outdoor questions in whatever state you chose to pick. North Dakota is a unique ecosystem, we raise a great deal of the waterfowl for the central flyway hunters, many hunters do not realize when they are hunting North Dakota waterfowl that they are hunting breeding stock until the migration starts in earnest. Should North Dakota open her borders and let anyone that wants to blast away and join in with the live for today and the heck with tomorrow mind set? I feel that the people that advocate this system and like to call us selfish should take a hard look in the mirror. The bottom line is as I have said before is that North Dakota could support 60,000 guest hunters, all we need to do is create or restore enough habitat to support that much wildlife.

Granted HPC was designed as a hunter management tool not a conservation tool but the fact remains it would have had a conservation effect. The biggest reason it failed was the fear of loss. North Dakota communities, Nonresident hunters, guides and outfitters, and large and small businesses in North Dakota were afraid they would lose income or perceived prime hunting privileges. Conservation had nothing to do with the effort to defeat this proposal.

I am a Fargo hunter, very very few if any of us are as portrayed by many that like to blast us as the easy answer as to where to place the blame for their situation, whatever it may be. We go out to rural ND spend money in the towns and cities of North Dakota just as any other resident of any other state. We may not spend the large sums of money that non residents do when they come to visit but try to remember our guest hunters are here for a week or two that has been planned and thought about for a number of months they saved their money and they are on vacation. I do not know what everyone else does on vacation but I splurge a little and have fun. North Dakota residents are the friendliest people in the nation, and that includes people from Eastern North Dakota we support our state every day of the year, not just during hunting season.

Bob Kellam 
Fargo ND

Bob:

As you know, you and I agree on more things than we disagree on. Habitat is one of them. I think we agree that not enough hunters work on behalf of maintaining habitat, be it wetlands or grass.

I am not sure that we can use the term "conservation" when equating it to curbing hunter numbers.

That term has been bandied about too much in recent years. Some think you're a conservationist if you give a few bucks to DU or Pheasants Forever or the National Wild Turkey Federation. I say the problem with that is it lets too many hunters think they've done their part by giving a few bucks and they walk away from the really meaningful fights, which unfortunately too many of the "conservation" organizations also do.

I'm also beginning to think much of this will become a moot point, because we're in a serious drought, and I've got a feeling that if this is an extended one, we will see waterfowl populations fall in a more precipitous fashion than we've ever witnessed in the past.

Bob, you know what my criticism really is. Too many of those who are fighting to keep non-residents out of either 
Dakota, aren't fighting very much for wetlands and grass.

Too many of todays duck hunters, like many of todays waterfowl biologists, aren't old enough to rememeber when we really had ducks.

You and I are old enough.

Let's agree to disagree on this issue, but be willing to work on behalf of the habitat issues that are far more critical.

If hunters get tired of me referring to them as "me firsters," they can work on behalf of habitat and I'll excuse the me first part.

Tony


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Tony ripped me on his website when I e-mailed him. He did nothing but dance around the subjects I brought up and hurled insults instead as per his usual.

Birds don't move in response to pressure but they do in response to weather........ya, right, lots of weather after the non resident opener to move those birds into balmy South Dakota????? Of course he doesn't see pressure, he is hunting with Kyle on posted land, they don't see pressure on Kyles land.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Tony:

I understand why you do not like zones, hek if I was a non-res I would dislike them also. But zones are the only way to spread out the pressure.

Now if you would step to the plate with your political connections in South Dakota and have them introduce a bill to raise the Non-Res waterfowl licenses to 30,000. that would take allot of pressure off of N.D.

You could be the standard bearer for that bill and do allot of testifying on it!

Roger Patterson

Roger:

I have been involved in that battle more than a few times in South Dakota over the years. Right now, we have more "Me firsters" and that makes it difficult to get that kind of legislation passed in SD. Because our "me firsters" got their way, you "me firsters" are having your problems.

Tony


----------



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

I don't see this "Selfish is as Selfish Does" letter up under Issues...did they pull it from the site?

"Name withheld by request" puts his cojones on the table by remaining anonymous. Gotta appreciate that.

His letter to Tony makes some pretty grand assumptions about the populace on this website. That we're comprised of Fargo citizens, and those "goodolboys" are the ones influencing the Resident Lobbying Group for Sportsmen in ND is far from true.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Here he is dancin' around djleye.

Tony,

I know that you testifiesd against the HPC in ND and you state that you were against the zones. You were also against the HPC last time were you not? What was the reason then?

You stated on your website that the birds are moved only a litttle bit by pressure, but you are so wrong! You hunt guided areas that see little pressure, but you should try and hunt public land after the non resident opener in ND. There is a reason that there are 100,000 birds on Sand Lake in SD after the non resident opener in ND.

This brings me to another topic, why would a guy from a state that has such huge waterfowl restrictions on Non Residents tetify against the same in another state? Have you tried to get your home state to ease the waterfowl restrictions on non residents? I would guess not. Seems a bit hypocritical doesn't it?? Why are the restrictions ok for your home state but not for mine?? Oh yea, you were only against the zones, so you say, but then why were you against HPC last time? To me this does not add up??!! I bet this letter won't make your web site.

Sincerely,

Daniel J. Levin 
West Fargo, ND

Dan:

Wrong on all counts.

You made the website.

It's beyond me how you guys get so worked up about everything you view as a threat to "your" hunting. So far, the folks like you frequenting the NODAK outdoors website have attacked Scheel's, Gander Mountain, Ron Schara and anyone who disagrees with you.

I was opposed to the Hunter Pressure concept last year as well. The only difference this year was the addition of zones. My reasons for opposing it is that it isn't necessary. If there are no ducks due to drought, lack of habitat, etc., hunter numbers will fall off by themselves.

What's driven so many duck hunters to North Dakota is simple. That's where (along with South Dakota) the ducks are. Because South Dakota did a stupid thing many years ago, you're getting the Non Residents. And the talk that eminates from all of you about how there's more non residents in North Dakota than Canada, overlooks a couple of really big factors: the perceived difficulty in getting shotguns across the border and the fact that you have to pay, as I recall, a $50 bill to do so. The other big thing is some understandable anger from Canadian farmers over US attitudes toward them over the Mad Cow hassle, plus continued political efforts to stop grain imports from Canada. Unfortunately, Canadian farmers react the same way some ranchers in western South Dakota do. They take it out on hunters. If you want to see some of that anger, spend some time on the cattleman's websites.

Sand Lake has always been a great attraction for mallards, especially after a snow or front in North Dakota. That has a lot more to do with it than hunting pressure.

And all you know about my hunting is what you see on TV. I've hunted North Dakota every year but 8 years and am a native. I've been a freelance hunter, I am betting, for more years than you are old. And I'll be the first to tell you that shooting a television show is a lot more difficult than freelance hunting.

Do you go out and knock on doors or do you see a "no hunting" sign and blame it on non-residents? I still knock on doors and am rarely turned down in North Dakota.

You're also wrong on my opposition to the silly restrictions on South Dakota waterfowling. I've been opposed to it from the first day I learned about them in South Dakota, let's see, back in 1968. I don't think it's fair to keep hunters out of either Dakota just to avoid the competition. After all, our National Wildlife Refuges (and ND has more than any other state), were paid for by Duck Stamp buyers from everywhere. Ditto for WPA's. This hatred some of you hold for non-residents is despicable. And without looking, I'm betting the cheap shots toward me are starting on the NODAK website.

Why not direct some of your energy toward preserving wetlands and keeping grass on the North Dakota landscape?

Tony


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

I used to really respect Tony and still respect his work for conservation but other than that I really feel his time has passed. He has been out of the "beating on doors to get permission" game for too long and can no longer relate. He uses his name as an advantage which I don't blame him for but he does not represent the average hunter anymore.

Sorry Tony. As a person living in Fargo (in your mind the enemy) you don't understand my views because you have never taken the time to ask me. At your age you should have the intelligence to know that what you spew is propaganda and lumping everyone into the same group because of where they live is a bunch of garbage.

In my view. He has become a curmudgeon. I'm only calling a spade a spade Tony. I call them like I see them. :wink:

Name given because its nothing but propaganda otherwise.

Jed Fluhrer


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Here's another one from a SD hunter...Talk about Tony being hyprotical...Make this statement....then the only place he hunts,at least on his shows is with an O/G who leases land.Both in ND and SD....

South Dakotan Likes Idea of Waterfowl Caps

Tony, I agree with you on just about every issue and I appreciate you work, but there is one issue where we strongly disagree. You have been calling me and other South Dakota hunters "me first" people. Instead, you want to let commercialism and rich non-residents to be "me first".

You, along with some non-residents, believe that we are selfish about waterfowl licenses and "emotional" about hunting. We often hear that we have a "disaster" because we are not flooded with rich non-residents. Some threaten legal action.

I will tell you who is fighting to keep the cap on NR waterfowl licenses. It is a group of avid waterfowl hunters that live here in South Dakota. We know that we have good waterfowl hunting and we want it to stay that way. SD hunters have seen what has happened here with pheasants. Commercialism has taken over and residents are often shut out of hunting around their home area. Land is being bought or leased by NRs, or by commercial outfitters. In fact, in the last few years, there have been more NR pheasant hunters (75,000) than resident hunters. Residents now can only hunt fringe areas unless they pay, particularly in the prime pheasant belt. Only the excellent work of SDGFP, with Walk-in areas, has provided some hunting. I, along with many SD hunters, have given up on pheasant hunting and concentrate on waterfowl.

We have seen what happened in North Dakota with waterfowl hunting. NR licenses have gone from about 5,000 to 30,000 in a decade. Land is being bought or leased all over ND, again by NRs and commercial outfitters. I know of several dedicated duck hunters that have moved from ND to SD to avoid the aggravation. With our proximity to high population areas, such as Minnesota, the exact same thing would happen here. That is what we are protecting against.

In addition, intelligent NR hunters agree with the cap because they understand that if you open the flood gates, only a very few will have good hunting and the rest of us will have poor hunting. I have talked to numerous NRs that love the situation here because they know when they get a license, there will be excellent hunting without having to hunt shoulder to shoulder. About half of Montana is public land that I helped pay for. Does that mean that I should be guaranteed an elk license each year?

SD already allows over 8,000 NR waterfowl hunters each year. There are 4,000 regular licenses, 2,000 3-day licenses, and 2,000 licenses for the September goose season. In addition, NR licenses are unlimited during the spring snow goose hunt. We feel that any more hunting pressure in the state would reduce the quality of waterfowl hunting for average SD residents. A survey conducted by SDGFP in 1996 found that many SD duck hunters were quitting. The number one reason was "it was too hard to find a good place to hunt". It does not take much common sense to figure out that if there are already residents quitting duck hunting because of overcrowding, an increase in non-resident licenses would only exacerbate the problem.

We live here because we appreciate the abundant outdoor opportunities. We put up with low wages, tough weather, and frontier politics. We pay taxes and spend money here all year long. As an educator, I could move to any other state and greatly increase my income. But I choose to live in SD so I can enjoy hunting and fishing year-round. There are many other SD sportsmen that feel the same way. One of our only perks is the excellent waterfowl hunting and we want to keep that.

Can you tell me what is so wrong about us wanting to maintain our waterfowl hunting? It may take years for us to find good hunting spots. Why should we give that up because some rich NRs want a guide to take them right to a hotspot?

While it is true that waterfowl are migratory, the resource that is limited is land. If all the land is tied up by NRs, SD citizens will be unable to hunt in their own state. 
With at best only one-fourth of South Dakota having good waterfowl habitat, there just is not room to have many more hunters and retain the quality. As with many outdoor pursuits, as the area becomes more crowded, the quality of the experience decreases. A problem with waterfowl hunting is that, unlike pheasants, which are spread over large areas, waterfowl congregate. Thousands more hunters would not fade into the landscape, they would congregate on already crowded spots. South Dakota does a lot for hunters from other states. In many years, we raise more ducks than any other state. And who benefits? Hunters from Nebraska to Texas reap the benefits of the teal, mallards, and other ducks we raise here.

It all comes down to money. In fact, we always hear the threat of a financial "disaster". NR will spend their money elsewhere. We resent the fact that some people think of us as the poor South Dakotans who just wait at the border for their money. I doubt that South Dakota's economy will fall apart because we restrict waterfowl licenses. We think it would be a "disaster" if we lost what we have.

How many South Dakota residents get to hunt on the land bought by non-residents? I would guess less than one. Part of what makes SD hunting so great is that the average guy can take his kid out and have a good hunt without having to pay or lease land. As hunters and conservationists, we have an obligation to maintain the waterfowling for our children and grandchildren. Currently, we have good waterfowl hunting for residents and some non-residents. Life is full of choices. If someone feels strongly enough about it, they can move here and become a resident. However, South Dakota cannot be and should not try to be Disneyworld for all US hunters.

As a final note, I think you are dead wrong when you say that people like me are not there for wetlands and grass. I belong to the SD Wildlife Federation, which does more to fight for wetlands issues than any other group in the state, and we also strive to maintain good waterfowl hunting for residents and some non-residents. I also belong to the NWF, Delta Waterfowl, DU, and several other Wildlife groups. On my small parcel of land, I have preserved a wetland and the surrounding prairie. Resorting to name-calling and false accusations is unnecessary. Thanks for listening.

Chuck 
Brookings, SD

Chuck:

Let me address the last point first. I agree that the SD Wildlife Federation has been in the thick of the fight to protect wetlands. In fact, along with the Ikes, no one has done more. And, as you know, it'll take a continuing effort.

Two years ago, I attended the Milwaukee Sport Show, which is operated by an old friend and dedicated waterfowler, Charlie Potter, the former Executive Director of Delta Waterfowl. Over lunch, Chuck said there aren't many places on the continent where waterfowl are really hunted by many hunters.

So we started naming the states where waterfowl hunting was significant. I might miss one or two here, but I recall us discussing the Dakotas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, southern Illinois (actually more for geese there), Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Mississipi, California and Oregon. There is some waterfowl hunting in other states, but nothing to the degree in those listed above.

North Dakota is currently getting more hunters than they want, and one of the reasons is the tight limit on South Dakota non residents.

An observation: The majority of non-residents who come to either Dakota aren't wealthy and aren't here to lease up land. I don't like the concept of leasing land for duck hunting whether it's done by non-residents, commercial operators or wealthier residents. Example: A significant amount of land along the Missouri River is tied up by wealthy residents, though I see that fading because we aren't getting the geese we once did.

A basic tenant of wildlife management, according to the guidelines laid down by Aldo Leopold, is to distribute the harvest in a fair and equitable manner. By essentially closing states to non-residents, we aren't doing that. Most in the profession of waterfowl management are aware of this concept of equitable distribution, but discard it when it comes to "their" hunting. I'm mentioning no names.

There's also a reason many residents are quitting hunting over and above the pressure from non residents, and I think this reason applies more to duck hunting than pheasant hunting.

We are an aging nation, and our states are aging at a faster rate than most others. Duck hunting is a lot of work and I see fewer and fewer older hunters out there doing it because of that. I'm 64, and I can't do what I did when I was 35. And everyone will go through that.

You're shooting from the hip when you suggest my reasons for opposing caps is to bolster commercialism, and frankly, you're just off base.

I am also tiring of the argument of how much we give up to stay here in either Dakota. Hell, I could have tripled what I bill each year had I moved to Minneapolis. But I didn't. So what?

In North Dakota, I hear much of that argument from guys in Fargo, which is enjoying an economic boom that isn't happening in Wing, Tuttle, Max or Devils Lake. In South Dakota, we have Sioux Falls and the I-29 corridor. Friends, there's more economic activity there than there is in Webster, Phillip or Plankinton. It's easy to sit in a population center, deride all non-residents as rich guys trying to take our land, talk about how much you've given up to stay here, and not show any concern for the motel op in Webster, White Lake or Desmet.

During my Dad's last year alive, I wanted to share the Missouri River east of Pierre with him for some duck hunting. At the time, no place on Earth offered better duck hunting.

He couldn't draw a license.

So, I went to North Dakota, and I'm thankful I had that chance to hunt with him before he died.

Chuck, I'm not saying you...or the guys from NODak outdoors are all wrong in their desire to keep quality in hunting. But if you hunt ducks as much as I think you do, you can't tell me with a straight face that we couldn't handle a lot more duck hunters than we do without hurting anyone's opportunities. And I hunt North Dakota every fall too. And if it's crowded, I haven't seen it.

Somebody beats you to a field? Get up earlier. Better yet, knock on the door of the owner of posted land and obtain his permission. Do that and you won't have to worry about beating someone to the field.

You know me, and I always try to call a spade a spade. I don't pull punches and I do call them as I see them.

This is how I see it.

I hope you have many more great duck seasons.

Tony


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

:eyeroll: uke:


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> We know that we have good waterfowl hunting and we want it to stay that way.


Sound Familiar??



> I don't like the concept of leasing land for duck hunting whether it's done by non-residents, commercial operators or wealthier residents.


Doesn't hate it so much it keeps him from using commercial operations!!!!!


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

> In fact, in the last few years, there have been more NR pheasant hunters (75,000) than resident hunters. Residents now can only hunt fringe areas unless they pay, particularly in the prime pheasant belt. Only the excellent work of SDGFP, with Walk-in areas, has provided some hunting. I, along with many SD hunters, have given up on pheasant hunting and concentrate on waterfowl


  Pretty much sums it up right there, the only difference is ND is giving waterfowl and upland away, soon to be deer next!!

Instead of freelancing we can call it fringe hunting. :eyeroll:


----------



## redsun (Feb 23, 2005)

Have been reading different topics here on the forumpage for the last couple of days. Being from Minnesota and hunting both of the Dakotas as a non resident (not rich either just like to hunt and fish). I wonder what the response from those in ND who are so much against the Non Resident would feel and react if Minnesota were to pass a law restricting the number of days that their fishing license was good for in Minnesota and that they would not be able to fish the first week of the season. You complain about Non Residents coming over to your state and buying up or leasing land. I will admit I'm not overly happy about that also, maybe mainly because I'm not wealthy enough to do it myself. We as Minnesotans face the same thing when non residents come into our state and buy up lake shore property. As to why the farmers treat some of the residents from North Dakota that are from the Fargo area, maybe if you would take the time to stop and talk to these people instead of just expecting you have the right to hunt on his land because you are a resident of the state, You would then understand why they feel the way they do about many of the residents from Fargo and Grand Forks.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

One big difference....most Minn. lakes have public access don't they?

But yes....you need to do what is best for the sportsmen of Minn.Not because of retaliation.

If it's residents only the first week,or seperate licenses for open water and ice fishing,or divide your state into zones....whatever is best for you.Because you live there not here.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

I agree with Ken, Minnesota Should make any law for their state as they see fit, It will be just peachy with me. Just let me know what the cost will be when I visit and we will all have a good time!

Allow North Dakota the same latitude!

Later
Bob


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

2/16/05 
Tony:
Could you please verify a couple of things you mentioned in regard to testifying in ND. You claim you've been opposed to SD silly NRs waterfowl restrictions and that you believe they are unfair. So for the record, would post on your web page that you would be in favor of eliminating the caps on NR waterfowl hunters in SD State wide, eliminate SD current six zones, and make a NRs waterfowl licenses good for two seven day periods, instead of the current 10 or 3 day licenses.

Kevin Hayer
Fargo, ND

Response
"No Kevin, I wouldn't do that. You must have a reason for wanting me to do it. What is it?"

2/17/05
Tony:
The reason Tony is to give you a chance to clear the air. You are on record by testifying in ND that you believe ND should not have a cap on NRs waterfowl hunters, and zones do not work. You posted on your web site that SD restrictions are silly. By not answering my question, I have my answer. It is about your character. If you truely believe that caps and zone are not right, you would do something to make a change in SD like you did here in ND. I sure hope you do the right thing.
Kevin Hayer
Fargo, ND

Response
"Kevin
By calling South Dakota's restrictions "silly," I think I made quite clear how I felt about them. I'm not sure just what your point is. And you have no knowledge of what I've done about South Dakota's silly regulations in the past. To assume, as you have, is CHILDISH. It is also inaccurate."
2/17/05
Tony:
I listened to your testimony in Bismarck. You told Rep Todd Porter that you testified in SD in regard to SD waterfowl restrictions. You did not elaborate. Did you try to have the cap and zones restrictions removed like you did here in ND? When did you do this testimony?
Kevin
Response(none)


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Redsun,

Yah, How about the RESTRICTION that NRs can't spear fish in MN? How about not letting NR youth hunt the youth waterfowl season? Im not complainng.....that's the way it is.....but don't tell us of all the restrictions in ND and then make it sound like there are non in MN.

If you weren't so damn selfish you'd accept the ONE WEEK early opener and show up the following week. WHY DO YOU HAVE TO BE HERE FOR THE OPENER? Could it be that you are so used to MN waterfowling deteriorating FAST after your opener.

"take the time to stop and talk to these people" You really don't have a clue....please don't pretend to know the entire situation after you spent a whole two weekends here in the Fall. You stop and talk because that's how the majority of you hunt....you ask one farmer for permission and then continuously pound that slough or land for the time you're here....hows that for a generalization.


----------



## Ithaca1 (Nov 24, 2003)

Never have been a fan of Tony Dean. I lived in the same area as him for two years. I found out he was not to well liked by his community. He pulled a nice stunt on a friend of mine down there. This friend of mine found him stuck and out of gas took him back to town to get gas took him back pulled him out and Tony never offered him a dime probably because he doesn't have a pot to pee in. He has pimped our hunting and fishing resources out with his show and very rarely shoots a show without accompaniment of a guide or assistance from one. I have heard that he has actually bullied people from fields that they were going to hunt just to shoot his show.


----------



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

I had a big post written up, but man...I'm getting sick of this crap. I'm just going to keep writing my legislators. I hope that my imput there helps the situation for resident sportsmen for this generation, and generations to come.

I'm tired of talking about certain writers, underhanded legislation, out-of-state lobbyists, and the like. Besides...we're just giving them fuel now...how much more can we say? They know where we stand we know where they stand, they just want OUR attention...and we're giving it to them. Forget it.

The only conversations I am going to have about these scenarios will be with my wildlife groups and my senator and representatives. THAT'S typing time worth while.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Awww, darn it Redsun, you figured us out, we never scout, we just drive out in the country in our Hummers from the big city and set out our 50 dozen hardcore decoys wherever we see fit cause you see we big city boyz don't need no permission, we own the state of ND. :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :withstupid:


----------



## redsun (Feb 23, 2005)

Field Hunter

Yes I am aware of the laws we have here in our state and I am against a lot of the restriction laws. I also would hope that our legislators are not so ignorant as to pass retalitory laws. I definitly don't feel that is a wat to solve a dispute. As far as to weather or not I know what is going on over in your state. I don't claim to know all of the particulars. I am not a waterfowl hunter so I don't sit on one slough everyday that my license in force and shoot that particular spot out. Also I don't come over their for my 2 weekends. I bought three licenses in your state last year and hunted a total of 23 days in your great state. My hunting partner and myself pride ourselves in the facy that we very seldom hunt the same piece of land more then once during the season. We also ask to hunt even if the land is not posted. We spend a lot money and time to locate land owners. We have purchased a plat book for every county that we hunt in to make it easier to find land owners. Yes we do hunt their the first week of the pheasant season because over the years we have built up enough good will with a number of farmers that are happy to let us hunt. We don't just go on their land because they gave us permission last year or last week. We always stop and reaffirm that we are allowed to hunt. I am not trying to tell the residents of ND how to do your hunting or which laws should be supported or not supported. I'm only trying to explain what has worked for us for a number of years.

Thank You and may the hunting gods look out for you and yours. Many happy days afield.


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

djleye,

I knew soon or later you would give up your secrets on how
to hunt deer in MN!

50 dozen hardcores and a hummer, sound like a pornstar
in the making!


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Naww, MN deer hunting is way different, I sit in my father inlaws apple orchard and wait for a fork horn or two!! 8)


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

"Cheap shots" by Tony Dean
1. Tony "By the way, I thought that the leader of the anti-non-resident group, Dan Buiede, was way off base when he tried to convince law makers that eight zones would spread the wealth among rural communities."
Talk about cheap shots. Dan is a good friend of mine, and when it comes to good morals, and honesty you will have a hard time finding someone with more. He is not anti NR! he believes unchecked numbers of NRs will hurt the quality of hunting for all, including NRs, and rural communities. To say Dan is anti NR is unfair and untrue! Dan donated his time and his own money to do what he thought was right. Unlike, Tony Dean who was most likely was asked by the Devils Lake chamber of Commerce to testify, which pays him thousands of dollars a year to promote Devils Lake. That is why Tony Dean came to ND. If he truly believes the SD NRs waterfowl restrictions are so wrong, he would get legislation drafted removing SD restrictions and testify for it in his state, until then he is just blowing smoke. Its not just about unchecked numbers of NRs, it is also the G/Os that are leasing up thousands of acres of the best hunting land.

2. Tony "So far, folks like you frequenting the NODAK outdoors website have attacked Scheel's,Gander Mountain, Ron Schara and anyone who disagrees with you."
Tony: "This hatred some of you hold for non-residents is despicable. And without looking, I'm betting the cheap shots toward me are starting on NODAK website."
Unlike Tony's web site, this web site is not edited by points of view. It seems to me Tony you are the real cheap shot artist. If you want to find out what is really going on stay tuned on this web sight.

Kevin Hayer


----------



## goosehtr4life (Dec 16, 2002)

Can someone please tell me where these so called "no fargo hunters' and Non-resident only" signs are???

I have hunted in No. Dak for 25yrs+ and have never seen these "so called" signs...I am just curious to what part of the state these are in.....

And if they do exist why would they??? I keep hearing this B.S. about how residents think they own the land, don't ask permission, don' get relationships with other ect.........Where in the world do they come up with this stuff????? I own land, get calls all the time for people to hunt, have never had anyone get angry if I can't let them hunt...People are very respectful if they can or can't hunt...resident or non-resident...So this line of B.S. is very old to me... uke:


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

The argument here really is, "What's more important, conservation or regulation?" Every time the topic of Tony comes up, his response is the importance of conservation and North Dakota residents are slammed for pushing any regulation.

Either you can't go duck hunting without ducks coming from wetlands, or you can't go duck hunting because you can't afford to hunt any of the wetlands. Personally, I feel they're both important and you can't ignore one or the other.

There was some interesting research done on this, and it's some good reading ( http://www.madduck.org/pdf/gunning.pressure.pdf ). Here's a snippet from it below:



> Two recent trends provide a biological rationale for believing this gunfire tutorial is sufficient to educate our flocks and even influence the behavior of duck species that are viewed as "intellectually challenged."
> 
> The first involves North Dakota, where the first week of the season gunning is limited to residents. The shooting is fairly light. During the second week, when ducks overnight face thousands of nonresident hunters, the sudden eruption of heavy gunfire causes ducks to flee southward. South Dakota hunters report a major influx of ducks after nonresidents begin blasting away in North Dakota. This escape flight is a new phenomenon that cannot be attributed to normal migration patterns or weather.
> 
> A second involves declining juvenile productivity. Our flocks today contain a higher percentage of adults - birds that have survived at least one gunning season and learned to avoid heavy shooting. Once the shooting begins, the young quickly learn fromthe adults to retreat to refuges, private sanctuaries and out-of-the-way areas during the day, waiting until nightfall to fly into nearby fields to feed.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Good read.

Does conservation always take place on the prairie? By regulating, would we not be conserving? When they opened the flood gates for waterfowl regs in the late 90's, duck harvests went thru the roof. Now that the numbers are falling and the pressure isn't the available ducks are scattered to where ever they find safety.
I'm buying it!

Tony would make a good politician, he really never has answered a question as to where the answer wouldn't benefit him.

The whole HB1422 concept goes ways beyond him or his rantings.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Exactly right....

Need habitat....but what good is it if I can only afford to hunt public land.

Same with the gun issue....entertwined...

Can't hunt without a gun...but what good is it without a place to hunt.I don't enjoy shooting clay pigeons or going to a shooting preserve.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

I would like to think that even if we lost hunting I would still be a wildlife kinda guy, love to see deer and birds, etc., but if It becomes a rich mans sport only and I cannot participate, the reality is that I would maybe not always vote for the wildlife and for habitat so others can enjoy pursuing the game!!!


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Drought Now all major forecasting centers are putting the word out we will very probaly have a severe drought coming our way. This will end duck production as we know it today, as a matter of fact many hunters today have not yet seen a drought. It will definitly solve alot of NR issues if we don't have ducks for them to hunt.

Everybody should pray ND gets plenty of moisture and alot of warm weather so all the invertrabrae can flourish to feed  the baby ducks. Last year was to cold for the invertrabrae to do well and it really showed up in decreased duck production. So put down your guns grasp your hands together and say thanks for what we have and pray for what we need. 8)


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

I have made it known on this and other sites that I hunt ND to be with family and friends. While I make no apologies for the number of birds we shoot, it is not the primary reason I return to hunt in ND.

Pheasants - I do well in MN, can not compare 1:1 because MN has a 2 bird rooster limit compared to ND's 3. If I want to bang waterfowl by the numbers I would certainly go to Canada.

ND legislature has opposed capping or restricting NRs, so I say control hunter pressure in others ways - preferably with residents and nonresidents sharing the burden.

If you want to reduce hunter pressure than a lower limit (say 4 vs 6) might reduce afternoon roadhunting pressure by those that MUST get a limit.

Poessesion Tags, afternoon closures, etc... could all be used.

You can quote all the economic reports you want. I would hope residents spend more money than NRs in their own state. But

1) much of the resident spending is likely in bigger cities. Big spend items such as clothing, boats, guns, decoys are more often purchased in larger cities. Do SUVs get tallied in this economic impact total?

2) if I am a small town business owner - I see the MN, WI, and other states plates. I see them booking hotel rooms, eating in cafes, pumping gas. Restrict them and I lose a good share of my economic base.

3) if I am a rural ND person - I do see a we / they, have - have not thing. I do not want someone who lives somewhere else to tell me what to do. Just like many ND people say to MNens - stay out of our politics - same can be said between rural and city, west and east. City, county, state, fed, world - everyone gets along on somethings - polarized on others.

*So if I am a small town businessman maybe I see all this in another perspective. ND residents hunt September Canada geese without much NR interference, ND residents get a week of duck hunting on their own, ND residents get a week of PLOT land all to themselves. Take, take, take - where is the compromise from their point of view?*

While the resident only week of waterfowl hunting is not the largest impact on ND duck populations - pressure is pressure - it does add up.

So if protecting the resource and lowering hunting pressure (keep 'em around a little longer) is the goal, then some new ideas need to be put in place. Residents and nonresidents sharing the "burden".


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

You forget. Our duck opener is and always been on or about the 1st weekend of October.....the weekend closest to Oct. 1st. Sometimes that's in September sometimes its in Oct. The resident only 1 week waterfowl season was added and offered to MN as well, only during a liberal season framework. When the liberal season framework ends, I believe it will be taken away. Oh by the way, MN was offered the early season and they turned it down the first year. Evidently they felt that it would hurt the traditional opener in terms of huntable numbers.

Week one of the PLOTS land residents only. I just can't imagine why this is such a big deal. NRs can still hunt that week, they have the rest of approximately 99% of the land in ND to hunt. Quit whinning about the PLOTS restrictions....it should never effect anyone. The WPAs are still open to you during that time....they have great upland hunting on them. Also as has been so elloquently put so many times on this subject by NR hunters, the PLOTS only get hit Sat/Sunday for the most part for that week. We don't hunt during the week. So in effect it's another openng weekend for both the resident and NR hunter the next weekend. It NOT like MN where the public land is mercilessly hunted day in and day out....this is ND. The season is open for THREE MONTHS. Why do you have to come hunt the 1st week? There are pheasants everywhere the whole season.

As far as I can see the reason that MN residents don't come to ND for early geese is that it's only legal in 2 SE ND counties....oh, forgot, you have many thousands more Canada geese in MN.

Take, Take, Take.....................I don't really see the problem.


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

Speaking about "small town economy" 1 In 1960 a farmer may have a BIG farm at 1200 acres and to farm it he employed at least his two sons if not more when harvesting and seeding. Today that farm is more like 2400 acres and it only employes two people and THAT IS THE REASON FOR YOUR SMALL TOWN ECONOMIC DOWNFALL. You should have seen it coming.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Actually not ej, it's more like everything else went up in price but what farmers sell to make a living. Pick-ups have at least quadrupled in price since the 70's and grain is the same as ever. 8)


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Your'e right about the drought Bucks....the late 80's was really tough.Temps in the 90's and low 100's for a couple weeks with no rain.I remember cities rationing water....no watering gardens or washing cars.We watered the greens at the golf course with a hose to conserve water.NOTHING was green.

Every pothole around here was dry except the deep ones in the hills.

The Souris River was 30-40 feet wide....the rest mud.

Very few non-res. were here then that come now.....they really don't know what dry is.....

2 or 3 duck limit with 1 mallard....That would shut down a lot of this commercialization and we could reaaly see if businesses can't survice without their money.


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

buckseye said:


> Actually not ej, it's more like everything else went up in price but what farmers sell to make a living. Pick-ups have at least quadrupled in price since the 70's and grain is the same as ever. 8)


So what your saying it still takes as many people to farm as many acres they did in 1960. MAN John Deere really pulled one over on the farmers. They convinced them to buy bigger and bigger tractors for NO reason according to your thinking. JD sure knows how to market something. Are you really that stupid?


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

No ej I'm not saying what you are saying at all. I am talking about the fall of the small town economys. I'm saying that the farms had to increase in size to make ends meet. If wheat was $20 a bushel farms wouldn't have to be so big. Pretty darn simple for some one as stupid as me huh.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I remember those days too Ken, you would see a cloud and pray. I hope for a normal year for a change. Gotta go fishin. 8)


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

I'm all for it, 3 ducks a day, 2 Canada geese, 10 snows, 2 ringneck pheasants, 2 sharptails and 2 huns. And shorten the waterfowl season.

Draw it up!!

Regulations=Conservation


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

buckseye said:


> No ej I'm not saying what you are saying at all. I am talking about the fall of the small town economys. I'm saying that the farms had to increase in size to make ends meet. If wheat was $20 a bushel farms wouldn't have to be so big. Pretty darn simple for some one as stupid as me huh.


"I am talking about the fall of the small town economys"
Well, if it takes less people to farm more acres then that is why the econ. in small towns died. What don't you understand? it has nothing to do with the price of wheat. They still farm the same land BUT with fewwer people! And now days it is nothing to drive 30 miles to get a part for the tractor, while in the old days they rarely went farther than 15 miles. in 1975 if you got 85,000 miles on a truck then it was old, today 85,000 is just broke in. The farmers all helped in this downfall. They had a choice weather to buy that tractor from (example) Belcourt John Deere or from Minot John Deere. When they looked at the price they found out that they could save 5,000 by buying it in Minot, so they did. I would have done the same with the profit margin so tight. so now there is no implement dealer in Belcourt(example) Now his tractor needs a part, well there is nowhere to get parts but in Minot. THAT IS THE REASON FOR THE SMALL TOWN DYING.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Actually, Ken, those were the good old days.....I didn't have to water my lawn all summer....I remember a couple of my neighbors getting in trouble with the city. Their lawns were green....evidently they didn't think anyone would notice if they had their sprinklers on at 3:00am. I, along with many others hunted very few times during the drought.....I remember driving around the SC ND area and not seeing more than 20 ducks a day. Very few of what you could call concentrations back then. Concentrated on the 2 pheasant/day and 4 in possession back then.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Yeah...almost all the non-res and most of the young guys here don't know what a real drought looks like....course there wasn't any CRP either.

The snow geese loved the mud flats on the river....we had good snow goose hunting then.....Ducks were pretty well non-existant.And that's what non-res. come here to hunt now.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Didn't shoot 5 mallards from 1989 til 1997, there just weren't enough.
Spent the whole decade of the 80's settin' up decoys every chance I had for 1 honker a day.

We would leave the yard an hour before sunrise, now we leave at 3:00 am or even sleep overnight to secure the spot, even if you think you have it secured.

If you saw a vehicle from another state you'd rubber-neck til your head darn near spun, now we do that when we see ND plates!!

AAHHH.... the good ole days!!!


----------



## mallard (Mar 27, 2002)

I remember when mud lake,over by chase lake,went dry.Hobart had dust blowing out of the bottom,and there were canada goose closure areas all over the state.We had pretty good duck hunting at times back when the limit was 4/day.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Yep. I cut my teeth hunting ND as a resident in the 80s. The drought proved to be interesting from year to year. With the early 90s being the worst.

Crane were the bird of September. Now where are they? Eat'n peas in SK?

Duck hunting was best in the fields because often that is all you had. The reservoirs in northern ND offered great field duck hunting. Limits of 3 - 4 ducks to those that knew how to hit the high ball before sunrise.

I remember in 92 when maybe 1 slough in 25 had water and most of those where big mud flats. No roost busting that year. When you did find a slough where cover was near the water's edge - you ALMOST felt guilty taking your drake mallards. Push 'em off the water and an hour later - they would return - where else could they go?

It still amazes me how long this wet cycle has lasted. Even the dry SC still has significant huntable water.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Many on this site have taken it upon themselves to be judge jury and executioner when the subject of Tony Dean comes up. Many of you know that I communicate with Tony on occasion. I am at a loss as to why the outrage against him is continuously brought up every time Tony's name is mentioned. Tony testified against HPC we testified for it, Tony came with friends, so did we. The only difference is that he gets some income from Devils Lake regional businesses because he does some of his shows there and brings tourism income to the area because of it. I need to ask the question, did his testimony kill the bill. No it did not, the bill was killed by Representative Nelson when he took the bill allowed no discussion and pushed it through without the opportunity to discuss possible amendments to make the bill more acceptable to all concerned. I don't see any public outcry to hang Representative Nelson.

Tony is a businessman who has a job that most of us would love to have. He has been doing it for years and yes he has friends that are outfitters and guides, so what, I do too. Tony does what all businesses do they promote themselves to generate income to keep the business going, do other businesses advertise or take contributions from sponsors in order to survive. Yes they do. Does Tony use guides on occasion to shoot his shows, yes he does. Television time costs a great deal. Can he afford to spend many days afield shooting footage and still do it within the profit guidelines of his business? Why do we expect him to be any different than any other business? Is it because his business involves something we are all very passionate about? Some here resent Tony for being involved with Sheldon, have any of you ever made a bad choice with respect to a friend?

Tony is in a position where he no longer has to ask permission for hunting access because he is very well known and people ask him to come to their cities and towns in order to gain additional tourism income. Maybe to some degree he is distanced from the freelance hunter that is out there knocking on doors to gain access. Guess what guys I am somewhat in the same position as he is. I have spent my adult life looking for hunting access and over the years I have made many friends in many areas of the state. I probably would not have to ask for access ever again if I wanted to hunt the same areas every year. I still ask for access because I like to hunt different areas and experience different landscapes. Many of you younger sportsmen will understand this when you get to be my age, you will have your places to hunt also.

Tony was somewhat rude to a good man when he testified at the HPC hearing. Dan Beuide is salt of the earth. You will not find a more devoted and caring advocate for North Dakota hunting anywhere, Dan is a good and honest person trying to do what he feels is best for those of us that chose not to speak up and be heard. I was not happy about the testimony when I read it, differing opinions can exist without personal attacks

Finally I would like to challenge you to name any other modern day conservationist that has worked as hard as Tony to keep conservation and preservation of natural areas in the spotlight. Tony has been a tireless advocate against drainage of wetlands, plowing of native prairie and the loss of old growth timber and habitat throughout the country.

You are entitled to your opinion, I am as well. Beat me up if you wish but I happen to agree with Tony on many issues and agree to disagree on some. Until you chose to step up to the plate and do as much for conservation as Tony has over the years, I would cut him a little slack. And maybe thank him for his efforts to make hunting better for us all.

Bob


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I see it as part of the sport, the more public you are the more heat you will generate and recieve from the public. I think there is probaly no way around it. A person in his shoes needs to be pretty thick skinned. I have nothing against Tony, he's probaly brought more awareness of ND wildlife than anyone good or bad, so for that it's all probaly worth it. Hope ya blast a pile of birds Tony!!


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

We tend to align ourselves with people who we believe will help our cause. Human nature?
What has Tony did for the hunting community of ND lately? What he has done in the past is just that, past, he will be remembered for standing against the resident hunters of ND. He didn't make the HPC fail, but he sure in hecks didn't help. 
As far as I am concerned Tony doesn't know what leg to stand on, he justs jumps around to suit Tony. Using fame for self gain is as low as it gets, especially at the expense of the working class Shmoes who are losing the outdoor oppurtunity.

What exactly has Tony done for conservation? What can we put our hands on, a lasting legacy of Tony's accomplishments? I am just asking, for I don't follow him to any measure except the differences on our slipping heritage.

It won't be long now, it will be for the Tony's and for those who have deep pockets to take in ND's hunting. Then we can all sit around the campfire and tell stories about what Tony did for ND sportman!!

Bob, we agree on a lot more than not, just not this. Don't take this as a dig on you. It isn't.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Bob,

Tony Dean calls us Fargo waterfowl hunters the "me firsters". Yet, almost to a man - including you, our chapter chairman - we are members of the original Fargo chapter of the Delta Waterfowl "Agassi Four Curls" chapter. As you know, our basic mission, other than to raise money for Delta Waterfowl, is to introduce our youth to waterfowl hunting. Hmmm! Does that sound like "me firsters"?

We also want to preserve our excellent waterfowl hunting for residents and non-residents alike! Agan, does this sound like "me firsters"?

Tony Dean, pure and simple, is a hired gun sponsored by the guide and outfitter industry. The guide and outfitter industry is concerned with one thing - and one thing only, and that is the profits that go into their pockets.

The rural community has been grossly mis-lead by the guide and outfitter industry. Just look at Mott. What has the guide and outfitter industry done for Mott? It has leased up vast quantities of land to provide hunting opportunities for its clients. Landowners get a "small" part of the income. It has also provided "Bed and Breakfast" opportunities for its clients. This has increased the income of the guide and outfitter industry, but has decreased the income of the local restuarants, grocery stores, and motels. Indeed, local people are feeling the pinch! Just ask their Senators and Representatives.

Yet, who gets blamed? Yep, you guessed it, it's us big city "me firsters", the local sportsmen who want to maintain the integrity of our hunting and our wildlife resources.

In short, Tony Dean may be a likable guy. He may be a good personnal friend. But, he is no friend to the North Dakota sportsman or the North Dakota wildlife resource!

BTW: I am not anonymous!

Jim Heggeness
2406 9-1/2 Street North
Fargo, ND 58102

701-298-8078


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

I may not be the oldest person to post here occasionally but damn close to it. I was born in 1925 so probably seen as much ups and downs in the waterfowl populations as any. I was fortunate enough to have lived on the Souris river and still do. There were no geese in those days, in 1936 my uncles heard some geese on the river and managed to get two, it made the local news paper. We had a lot of local ducks on the river as we did not have racoon for a predator in those days. Skunk were worth a couple of days wages so they were controlled. Forgot to mention that there were no fox either, And for that simple reason I lived in duck paradise for a boy that loved to hunt. Speaking about droughts, we better hope that we do not have a prolonged drought like we had in the 1930s. Buffalo Lodge Lake by Granville was dry and was farmed. And Devils lake was close to it. Rush lake between Towner and Rugby was hayed as it did not have any water. The Clark Saylor refuge was not in existance until the middle thirtys. I would also like to know where all these anti Fargo signs are at and do not know a single land owner that harbors that type of mentality, we have Fargo turkey hunters that come when ever they get tags have not had a single rancher turn them down. Most of the land owners we know do not seem to care where the hunters are from, but if they think they have ties with some of these G/O they are quick to voice their disapprovel. I am disapointed with our local elected represenatives, they could at least ask some of us local hunters about the wildlife issues. All I can say is the next election I will save money as they will be told to get their money from the G/O and the Charming ladies at the tourism dept. All in all we have every thing to be thankful for and I for one would hate to see it squandered by finacial greed. The G/O are chipping away a little at a time and if Tony wants to see what we are up against try free lancing around the pheasant country in the south west part of the state. Know a few locals that used to do that but they finally gave up. And they used motels the local cafes and watering holes. So even if it was ND money it was good for local economy. :beer:


----------

