# MPLS Star Tribune Article



## H2OfowlND (Feb 10, 2003)

Thought this might be of interest...

Minnesota hunters are staring down the barrel of ever-tightening hunting restrictions and escalating license fees when they travel to other states to hunt.
North Dakota is the latest to impose stricter hunting regulations and higher fees for nonresidents -- including the 15,000 Minnesota hunters who journey there each fall to hunt waterfowl and perhaps 10,000 who hunt pheasants.
That has some Minnesota hunters crying foul and suggesting that Minnesota should retaliate by raising its fishing license fees for North Dakotans or limiting how many days they can fish here.
North Dakota's actions, which mirror similar ones imposed in recent years in South Dakota, Iowa and other states, have Minnesota hunters steaming.
"The whole thing stinks," said John Molkenbur of St. Paul, an avid waterfowl hunter who still plans to hunt ducks in North Dakota this fall.

Minnesota officials have heard the howls.

"This North Dakota situation really ticks me off," Gov. Tim Pawlenty told about 90 members of Minnesota outdoors groups and politicians gathered Saturday in Nicollet, Minn., to discuss outdoors issues.
Pawlenty said he intends to meet with North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven to discuss the situation. "I'm going to go up and tell him this cannot go forward on this basis, with this amount of tension and frustration and, frankly, this amount of unfairness," Pawlenty said.
"We will seek out ways to get his voluntary cooperation to bring some fairness. If that's not successful, we may have to use other means."
The group applauded Pawlenty's comments.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Gene Merriam said last week that state officials are concerned. "However, we don't think it makes sense to escalate the arms race by being retaliatory.
"But they [North Dakotans] can't come over here and enjoy fishing our lakes in the summer and expect our citizens to put up with some pretty onerous provisions during the hunting season there."
Said Rep. Tom Hackbarth, R-Cedar, who heads the House Environment and Natural Resources Policy Committee: "I can promise you that something will happen."

The issue has been controversial in North Dakota, too.

Some residents have pushed hard for the North Dakota Legislature and governor to restrict nonresident hunters. Others said that pulling in the welcome mat will only hurt the state's economy and many small-town businesses that depend on visiting hunters and anglers.
The heart of the issue: Those who support nonresident restrictions say too many nonresident hunters are flooding the state each fall, taking away hunting opportunities from North Dakota residents. They also say nonresidents are leasing or buying hunting land, making it harder for residents to find a place to hunt.
"Some of our residents are concerned about losing their places to hunt," said Paul Schadewald of the North Dakota Game and Fish Department. "And they complain of heavy hunter traffic in some areas."
There has been a dramatic increase in nonresident hunters flocking to North Dakota.
The number of nonresident waterfowl hunters jumped from about 8,000 in 1990 to 30,000 last year, when the state put a cap on the number of available nonresident licenses. (There are about 35,000 resident waterfowl hunters in North Dakota.) There is no cap this year, but other restrictions are intended to check nonresident hunter numbers.
Half of the nonresident waterfowl hunters are Minnesotans. 
North Dakota's nonresident pheasant hunter numbers also have climbed from about 8,000 less than 10 years ago to about 22,000. (There are about 50,000 resident pheasant hunters.) Officials don't have a breakdown of where those nonresident hunters are from, but it is assumed that half are from Minnesota.
"Some residents wanted more restrictions than have been imposed," said Schadewald. "Other tourist and economic development people didn't want this. It's been a struggle. And I'm afraid it's going to continue."

Irate callers 
The phones have been ringing at the North Dakota Game and Fish Department from upset nonresident hunters.
"This week I've been talking to six to eight nonresidents a day," Schadewald said. "Yes, there are some hard feelings. There are some people who are irate and say they're just not going to come to North Dakota to hunt.
"But that's just what some North Dakota people want."
Schadewald said that when he explains some of the new regulations, some nonresidents aren't as upset.
Here are the major changes facing nonresident hunters in North Dakota this fall:

For the second consecutive season, only residents are allowed to hunt the first week of the waterfowl season, beginning Sept. 27. The intent is to give residents first crack and ducks and geese. Nonresidents can hunt beginning Oct. 4.

Nonresident waterfowl hunters are restricted to 14 days, or two seven-day periods, as they have been for years. They can buy only one license per season. Last year, the state capped the number of nonresident licenses available at 30,000. "We had several thousand hunters who didn't get licenses last year," Schadewald said. There is no cap this year. But there are new zones for nonresidents, and those hunters may hunt only seven days in certain ones.
"One of the concerns is from nonresident landowners who have land in those areas," Schadewald said. "Instead of being able to hunt for two weeks, they can only hunt for one week on their own land."
That could discourage nonresidents from buying or leasing land for hunting, Schadewald acknowledges. "In fact, that's probably part of the intent of the sponsors [of the regulations]," Schadewald said.

Nonresident upland and waterfowl hunters won't be able to hunt from Oct. 11 to Oct. 17 on state-owned and state-leased lands, including those in the PLOTS (Private Lands Open To Sportsmen) program. That's the first week of the pheasant season. Nonresidents still will be able to hunt during that week on private or federal lands.

The restriction mostly will affect pheasant hunters, not waterfowl hunters. Most lakes and sloughs are bordered by private property, Schadewald said. State lands affected are posted with signs indicating they are state-owned or state-leased, Schadewald said.
Some nonresident hunters are upset because the restriction falls during a time when most Minnesota youths are out of school for teachers' conferences and often accompany adults on hunting trips.
The law was intended to affect only pheasant hunting, but the state attorney general ruled that because of its wording, it prohibited all nonresident hunting on those lands for that week.
That leaves a confusing situation: Those lands are open to nonresident waterfowl hunters from Oct. 4 until Oct. 10, then are closed for a week, then reopen to nonresidents on Oct. 18. "It doesn't make any sense to us either," Schadewald said.

The cost of nonresident waterfowl licenses has increased to $100. A small-game license to hunt pheasants also now costs $100. The cost to hunt both pheasants and ducks has nearly doubled to $185. Those costs now are similar to South Dakota's.

Small-game licenses for pheasant hunters, which used to be valid for the entire season, now are good for only 10 consecutive days or two five-day periods, the same as South Dakota's. Hunters can buy multiple licenses.
Fee increases for nonresidents are becoming commonplace. Iowa boosted nonresident fees for a wild turkey license from $81 to $188 last year. And South Dakota now has a special early pheasant season just for residents.
Given the fee increases occurring across the border, some angry Minnesota hunters say the state's nonresident fishing licenses should be increased, at least for North Dakota residents.
The state sells about 42,000 nonresident fishing licenses to North Dakotans. A license, valid for the year, costs $35, or $47 for a husband-wife license.
Those on both sides of the North Dakota-Minnesota line agree border battles won't help retain and recruit hunters and anglers.
"We're seeing barriers erected to hunting opportunities," Merriam said. "It's not in anyone's best interest."
But the problem isn't likely to go away.
Said Schadewald: "What is happening is the places that have good hunting are getting a lot of pressure from all over the country. Where is there good waterfowl hunting in the lower 48 states? There isn't a lot of places. And good pheasant hunting is somewhat limited, too."

North Dakota has both.

Doug Smith is at [email protected].


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Maybe someone needs to remind Hoven that Pawlenty does not vote in this state nor do I in MN. Then he needs to point out the cost and troulbe MN has raised concerning water use out of the Red River. Kind of suprising that so many MN want what we have but do not want to live here.


----------



## FACE (Mar 10, 2003)

My two cents..................let North Dakota do whatever the hell they want and you Mn hunters just stop cying about it. I live here in Mn but don't consider myself a Minnesotan AT ALL!!!! I'm so sick of listeneing to the *****in' and whinin' that many(NOT ALL) Mns do! Get over it!!!!!! To limit NR fishermen WHOAAAA!!!! BIG DEAL!!!!!!!!!!!! If Minnesotans were banned from hunting everywhere else but home it wouldn't hurt my fealings a bit!!!!!!!!!! I think every state should have the right to look out for their own residents first!!!!! And if it meens putting restrictions on NRs then so be it! Any disagreements with me then keep them to yourselves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Dano2 (Oct 8, 2002)

Obviously not the subject here, but since Ron brought it up, I'm just curious as to the trouble MN has caused from using water from the Red River?
I know as far as Moorhead goes, it comes from there, and from wells as well, and fargo comes from the red river and sometimes sheyene.
just wondering.
thanks


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Does anyone seriously believe that if Minnesota had our game numbers they would not move to protect their citizens hunting? I didn't think so.

We are not a colony of Minnesota to be dictated to at their whim because it costs them a little more to hunt here. Like Ron said, they don't vote here, they don't live here.
Minnesota has always hammered us on the Red River, remember the dikeing lawsuit on the northern Red------their dikes should be higher than ours----guess who gets the flood water? When eastern ND wanted clean water from Garrison, remember who opposed it?

Of course, maybe Minnesota has a governor who listens to the sportsmen there. Refreshing!


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

I believe Senator Dayton recently went on record opposing the Devils Lake control proposels. Should we allow Minnesota to make the decisions regarding our natural resourses?


----------



## Rem700 (Jul 31, 2003)

Go Pawlenty!!! I am glad that they are finally doing something about this!!!Why is it that everyone has their feathers ruffled??? Is it because tens of thousand MN lake home owners are from ND's RRV? and if they don't own a home it is their day trip home away from home? I can see why they would be upset because now they would have to drive all the way across the state to get into any fishing at all.

I don't understand why the MN's are upset about being pushed out of ND. I hunted in MN for almost 15 years before moving to ND and there was not a day that I couldn't have just as good of a hunt there as I have here. The western side and southern part of MN have just as good H2O hunting if you know where to look. With the population explosion of the Giant Canadians the only difference would be that there is really no migrating lessers. (but comon what would you rather shoot, a limit of giants or lessers?)

I also pounded many limits of roosters out of the SW part of the state, actually it was probably better hunting than here in ND because you didn't have any leased land or pay for hunting operations.

Yes, I hunt ND, not because it is better than MN, I would hunt any state that I resided because I love hunting. I hope that they (the Gov's) can iron this out. My Family is from MN, they have a lake home there, and I love to fish there. My father who is 68 and a NR to ND comes here to hunt, not because the hunting is any better but that is where his two hunting partners for 33 yrs and 5 yrs now reside and he wouldn't miss that for any amount of money, neither would I. So if it comes down to it I guess I'll give you guys more room to hunt, cuz I'd rather give my $ to MN they stand for much more than the whiney ND res. do.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Doesn't MN have enough trouble without concerning itself with ND and other neighborng states? I can see it now. Iowa residents won't be allowed to hunt deer and pheasants in MN. ND residents won't be allowed to fish in MN the first week of the walleye season. (the ND walleye season never closes) SD residents will be banned from huntng pheasants in MN. I can't wait to see the proclamation...it's already like reading a novel now.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

The main issue that is really putting MN hunters up in arms is the closure of PLOT and NDG&F land during the MEA teacher's convention days. The loss of use on that Thursday and Friday is the BIG issue.

The ND legislature did not plan it that way when they came out with this legislation - I would have to believe that it is a matter of coincidence.

Curt Wells wrote a nice article in the Outdoor News last week. He essentially said that the law as written was poorly designed and an enforcement nightmare. Does it make sense to have PLOT and NDG&F land closed to waterfowl hunting in areas where few pheasants live?

I agree with Wells.

PH's comments : 
*If ND wanted to give residents first crack at pheasants. Open the season for residents only for seven days. *Then open for all. Too bad the powers of the G/Os were too strong.

"This NRs on private land only" for the first seven days only serves those that guide, lease, or sell land to NRs.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I don't understand the logic of this statement PH...If ND wanted to give residents first crack at pheasants. Open the season for residents only for seven days.

If this were the case then Minn. hunters still could not hunt during teachers conv. anywhere for pheasants.Now they can hunt here,but not on state land.


----------



## lasalle (Jan 15, 2003)

As a Minnesota resident I can understand both sides, North Dakota should protect its resources but North Dakota resource is also an American resource. And now Minnesota wants to retaliate by limited hunting and fishing. I don't know how this will set, some say the resorts won't stand for it. Let me tell you the resort industry in Minnesota is dead. Judd's resort on Winnie is closing, most small resort are in huge trouble. They don't have the pull that they did in the 70's. Fetch, you talk about raping the resource, you first should look to Minnesota lakes. Specifically the perch and walleye, I'm glad they finally reduced the perch limit; they are going to come back. I'm sure limiting the amount of nonresidents fishing licenses will anger some folks, hopefully they do raise the license, $100 a year sounds about right. That will also help the MNDNR with budget issues. Most guys just want a quality hunting/fishing experience. Unless you're rich that becoming hard to do in any state.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Resident only season: Yes Pheasants would be closed for NRs everywhere that Thursday and Friday, *but the PLOT and NDG&F lands still open to hunting for waterfowl, etc...*

Enforcement easy: NRs can not possess a pheasant until Saturday.

*It is the access (or lack of access) that has these (not me) MN hunters upset. *

SD does not open their season until Saturday, October 18th. SD Resident only season is 3 days the weekend + Monday before regular opener. Plus they have a youth pheasant season October 4 and 5.

None of this creates a we - they attitude regarding access to public land.

To my knowledge MN hunters have not really complained about these early SD hunts.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

*What if the MN DNR stated :*

Nonresidents could not use public boat launches the first 4 weekends of the regular fishing season?

Nonresidents with cabins or using resorts would not be impacted, but the freelance NR (mostly ND people) would be excluded on many, many lakes.

Thus the commercial entities would rule, those relying on public land ... out.

In fact resorts would make good money, because they could charge $10 or more per boat for freelance NR fisherman to launch boats.

Access to public land gone ... fair ? That is apparently the issue ...


----------



## NDJ (Jun 11, 2002)

how about focusing the energy being used bickering in working to improve what the state has to offer....Didn't MN have some major issues in their DNR...

Seems like Pawlenty put Hoven in a bad spot here, a no win situation....An impression of ND being MN's playground????

I think MN should raise NR fishing $$$, adjust limits and slot limits, use the money to improve the resource and access to it....

Didn't we go through the threats last year with the cap and the res only week???? Must be preseaon stress?


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

PH and Bob Dole - separated at birth? Sorry, Dan Bueide couldn't resist that one any longer. 

Will this benefit the G/O's? They'll probably pick up some extra business, assuming they have capacity(?). Many (most?) NR uplanders without much landowner affiliation will probably wait a week.

Who else will this benefit? Lots of residents who have not hunted the "opener" in prime areas for many years because they don't have landowner contacts that are open that weekend and haven't been willing to play war games on public land. I have a neighbor with a 17 year old son that has no contacts in the prime areas and doesn't enjoy battling crowds on opener on public grounds. 1223 will cause them to hunt the opener in a great area together for the first time ever. I have other friends that have hunted the NW on opener for years, usually only two days. They hunt "opener" because of family hunting "traditions", and hunt almost exclusively on state land. They have complained about opening weekend pressure in recent years and have up until now only hunted the weekend because that's all they were willing to take of the pressure. This year they plan to hunt 4-5 days that week.

Sometimes you crawl b/4 you walk. The resident-only-everywhere first week was discussed prior to the last session. Yes, the G/O's would have fought it. So would landowners used to having sons, daughters, grandchildren, etc. come home from other states for the traditional "opener." So would have other tourism interests.

At the end, it was decided, after consultations with legislators, to limit 1223 to state lands. In this recent melee about harsh treatment of NR's, I have to agree with Ken in what would be perceived as more obtrusive. No pheasant hunting anywhere that week, or no hunting on state land that week? Would MN MEA'ers been happier that they couldn't hunt pheasants anywhere in the state that week? I don't know how MEA is set, but I believe the recent ND traditional opener has always been the second Saturday in October. ND did not plan the effects of 1223 integrated with the traditional opener date to mess with the MEA'ers. As PH said, it's coincidence there's any overlap, but taking away all pheasant hunting for the first week would surely have drawn heavy fire too.

The current interpretation of 1223 is not inconsistent with G&F's thoughts during the session. I know this from several conversations with them during the session. The first 1223 interpretation a few weeks ago, regardless of the message now, was inconsistent with what they thought 1223 meant then. What happened in the interim I suppose is anybody's guess, but I have a few.

NR uplanders still have options if they choose to hunt ND that week. Pheasants on private or federal lands. Grouse can be real iffy by then anyhow, but these state lands aren't typically the best place to hunt them either - usually too heavy cover. Partridge? - give me a break. They were never "hunted" by many if any anyhow, and their present numbers are such that the very few who might have, wouldn't.

Waterfowl? WMA's can provide decent waterfowling, but this provision will kick in after two weeks of res and one week of nonres waterfowling. My personal experience is that, especially with the hunter numbers of recent years, public hunting areas quickly become pretty unreliable. Some PLOTS parcels may have some water, but they are more commonly upland and deer habitat, so their unavailability isn't all that big of a deal for NR waterfowlers either.

I guess it's only natural that the state who last acts gets the greatest attention, but I think another huge factor is how unbelievably open ND and its outstanding offerings have been for so long. SD, which is probably the state most comparable to ND in terms of species offerings, barely gets mentioned in passing when the fur starts to fly. SD, of course, has the trespass law. SD also effectively limits waterfowl licenses as we know them to 13% of last year's ND cap. SD has a shorter pheasant season (3-4 weeks), a res-only week, and has had the 2-5's split upland license (always and still more $ than ND) for many years. Which state is by far and away still more nonres-friendly?

Yes, ND was the last to act, but I think a big part of the fury is for many thousands of folks the faucet dispensing free milk was closed about two turns. For many nores the too-good-to-be-true ND gravy train is leaving the station. Many ND res's know the feeling. SD, which has always been and still is far more restrictive, largely gets a pass because they have a history of being more restrictive. The present format or a full week of res-only pheasants, the NR's "harshing" would be "harshing" either way, and the present format has less of an actual effect on more of them.


----------



## tmorrie (Apr 1, 2002)

What is the latest on the MN DNR plan to improve watefowl hunting in the state? Their big initiative and long range plan to improve the states waterfowl hunting was announce a few years ago and haven't really been following it to see what actual work has been done. Can anybody provide an update on it?

"Given the fee increases occurring across the border, some angry Minnesota hunters say the state's nonresident fishing licenses should be increased, at least for North Dakota residents."

How come the MN powers to be are forgetting to include SD in the whole equation? They've had their restrictions (6K non-res waterfowlers and 10 day pheasant license) in place for so long that everybody get's all PO'd at ND. SD has had these regs for years and is a big part of the problem of ND residents feeling their being flooded with the midwest's non-res waterfowlers.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

All the more reason to get someone as Govenor that understands all this :-?

Go to a Red Hawks Game & a College Football game & Sioux Hockey - Otherwise all Minn does is Help Montana Keep ND Windy  :wink:.................Next ??? :roll:


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Fetch, Hey I was in the Grand Cities awhile back. I forgot to call you. 

Also attended a Red Hawk game in August. It was fun. 

Dan: Sorry but that one was way over my head - someone explain to me - please :lol:. By the way, who are you billing these internet hours to??

Access is apparently what the name of the game is now. If ND would have had a 3 or 7 day resident season - would have been accepted much easier than shutting people off public land (especially their kids).

Really does not impact me personaly, but PH could be impacted by some stupid esculating border battle.

Gophies are waiting to ease their schedule with DI basketball games against ND teams. Wait those Canadian BB players are lining up to fill the teams too.

Yah - yah Fetch ==> *why is some of the best ND hockey players go to the U of M and some damn good MN boys attend UND ==> because the world does not end at the Red River.* Either way!!

While Fetch and Dan may not care - plenty of ND fisherman would rather fish east rather than west of home.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Huns! Let's keep dueling Dan.

No better ND upland game bird.

Huntable in every county until the wet summer of 1993. Even the RRV once supported huntable populations. After 10 long agonizing years they are finally making a comeback.

Nothing better than scouting for geese fields or the next duck pond and running into a nice little covey of huns.

bass vs walleye
upland vs waterfowl .... everyone has their favorites.

NRs traveling to ND for Huns? Dan you would be surprized at the number of upland hunters (w/ pointing dogs) that used to travel to ND for such sport.

MN hunters - you were probably right, just a bonus bird.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

So we should have res. only the first 3 days instead of not using GNF land the first week?I would wager there would be a lot more screaming from sons and daughters that live out of state and come home to hunt the opening weekend than Minn. hunters crying because they can't hunt GNF land during teachers conv.
Besides next year is leap year,which means the calendar moves back 2 days.I would bet that Minn. convention will move back a week to the 21 and 22 of Oct.But the pheasant season will open on Oct. 9th.SO this conflict won't happen next year.The Minn. hunters can all bring their kids and hunt PLOTS during 2004 teachers conv.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Hey I said I am not personally impacted.

Ex-pats. I would have totally agreed with you 10 or 20 years ago, but I would argue that the opposite is now true. The number of ex-ND heading home (like me) is now the smaller group.

Thought ND G&F has the number (%) of NRs that have a ND connection. Not that many people can be moving from ND to MN? are there?

*Ken : ever think that maybe it is the waterfowlers that are yelling - not the pheasant hunters.*

Based on internet sites and site traffic - waterfowlers are more vocal than uplanders.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

A question of you NRs that are having a problem with the PLOTS restriction. Why is everyone so upset with not being able to hunt the 1st 7 days?...there are, I believe 103 days to hunt PLOTS and game and fish lands after the restricted time.

I'd also have to bet that the governor of MN must also be trying to change the 6000K restriction on waterfowlers in SD as well. Why isn't that a big deal to you guys?.....we freeze out early, more often than not, and SD duck hunting is generally much better for a longer period of time.

Before ND had huntable populations of turkeys, didn't MN limit their licenses to residents only?


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Bob Dole: "Bob Dole believes ..........." PH: "PH believes ............"
The riddle was the use of the third-person when referring to one's self. No big deal, Dan Bueide just kind of gets a kick out of it. It must say something about a person, but I haven't a clue what.

And I certainly didn't mean to draw your ornery/pissy side out again. Why the occasional lawyer jabs? Bad divorce? Notice how it's usually the tough guys that post using handles? No name + nothing to lose = noooooooo filter.

Anyway, I fish more east than west, neither very "hard" right now, with the little ones and all (bank most of my "chits" for the Fall). I would like to
continue to fish east and west, but have consistently said that if my use of
MN's or any other state's outdoors resources are causing a pinch for the
residents, then restrict me. If that particular activity, or that in
conjunction with other factors, is that important to me, I'll move. If it's
not, I'll accept the opportunities given by another state and not ***** about it.

Huns. You must run in different circles. Don't know anyone, res or nonres, that views these other than species of opportunity. Don't get me wrong, I love to run into them and they're great table fare, but even in their hay-day, don't know anyone personally that regularly hunted them other than incidental to walking for roosters or sharpies or I suppose the quintessential targets of opportunity (ditch) as you've described. I don't think they factor one once of goulash into the who, what, where and when restriction debates.

Sadly, with a few exceptions, in the last few years I've seen more huns in
the winter in my neighborhood in SW Fargo than in the rural areas during
hunting season. Hope that changes soon and they make a substantial
comeback. They are fun little buggers when you run across them.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

I saw a dozen in a ditch this past weekend (Partridge that is - Not Bob Doles) :roll: :lol:

I can't bring myself to shoot them anymore - I just smile & hope they keep reproducing - Now that Bob has discovered Viagra that seems more feasible :wink: :huh:


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

I left MN for ND better than 23 years ago, as I saw the writing on the wall even then. Competition on WPA/WMA's was fierce, access to private land was near impossible w/o money or a personal contact, and the hunting wasn't all that good. The Metro area was beginning to dictate what was best for the rest of the state. Once you get used to the fact ND is predominantly prairie, and accept you aren't going to make as much money here as a comparable job in MN, ND has MN beat hands down, for a dedicated outdoorsman. My best waterfowl hunts ever in MN compare to the mediocre days here, and there isn't even a comparison when it comes to big game. Closing the PLOTS and State land for that week is a silly and useless law, and makes about no sense to me. It will just increase pressure elsewhere. As a resident here, I wouldn't presume to dicate to the folks of any other state how they should run their business and manage their resources. Why do so many NR feel they have this right concerning ND?...


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

It is the MN waterfowlers heading to ND and the MN hunters heading to ND with children in tow that are MOST upset. Pheasant hunters have already seen SD do this to them.

While you are correct PLOT and ND G&F GMAs are open all season long, the seven days in October are prime, prime, prime. Especially eastern and northern GMAs for waterfowl.

ND teacher's conference is the following Th and F. Does this mean the plot lands in SW ND will be full of hunters ruining chances for ND youth to hunt pheasant hassle free???

Turkey :eyeroll: 
I would bet that MN allowing NRs to hunt turkey has nothing to do with ND. I shot turkeys in ND (fall season) before MN ever had a season

MN DNR :: "In the state's first wild turkey season in 1978, hunters bagged 94 birds. These days, hunters are harvesting more than 5,000 wild turkeys each spring"

Not sure why MN opened turkey to NRs when the number of applicants is double the number of licenses.

One interesting law in MN is only a licensed turkey hunter can escort another licensed turkey hunter in the field. I guess it prevents guiding and also prevents someone from shooting their friend's or spouse's bird.


----------



## lasalle (Jan 15, 2003)

Both resident and non-residents agree that the main problem is access to good hunting land. The g/o is leasing more land making access more difficult. Now North Dakota wants to restrict non-residents further with out access to PLOTS and state land. . . . IMO, which will only result in non-residents being forced to used g/o even more. What a silly rule, residents want to limited guides but with this rule it will almost force nr's to use guides. I'm going out October 8-12, there are some good plot land and bureau of land management that I'm assuming I can't hunt, that leaves only WPA's and private land. :eyeroll:


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

PH, I know you have many private acres to hunt but you've got to admit there will be so many NR hunters on the Plots lands that yes, it will be a very bad place to bring a ND youngster. You're also right in that opening weekend is a prime time...shouldn't the residents, who support the state year round get a chance at the land they help support with their taxes before the influx of NR hunters.

Lasalle, Your also right, one of the main problems, along with too many NR waterfowlers all visiting at the same time and concentrated in the main pothole areas, is access. The PLOTS and Gnf lands will be off limits to you on the 11th and 12th but feel free to use them the 8-10 when they're open for waterfowling and upland hunting. I think that you and others like you, who are basically hunting the public land, may have new opportunities opened up to you that you never realized existed before the ONE WEEK closure, that by the way is substantially less than 1% of all the land in ND, that was initiated by our legislature. You may have to work harder...welcome to the club, to find land to hunt but most of it will be better. As far a guides, I think you're wrong. As I said above well over 99% of the land in ND is still open to hunting by NRs during the Oct 11-17 closure of state land. I don't think there will be any additional NRs using guides, at least the majority of them.....the ones not afraid to ask for permission from private landowers. If you find yourself needing a push in a new direction, feel free to PM anytime and I'd be happy to help.


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

The land grab is on the horizon folks, leasing, posting, buying of parcels, duck clubs. This is a direct result of ND lawmakers making irresponsible decisions. OOops, we MEANT pheasant hunters during MEA, not waterfowl hunters. OOops we did'nt know or care that MEA was at that time. I will give credit and thanks where it is due, it only costs $13 for my 12 yr. old daughter to hunt with me this year in ND because MN and ND have reciprocity with each other for youth hunters. This is one example of how it should work.


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

James:

I have read a couple of your posts and I am having a hard time understanding your spitefulness. One point I would like to make emphatically clear, you as a non-resident have a substantial advantage over residents when it comes to securing access to hunt. Based on all of the bunk that the tourism/G/Os have spread in the small towns, residents really have to get out and hit the dirt roads in the offseason to secure spots. On the contrary, non-residents are now treated like royalty and a simple introduction will almost always allow you to gain access. Obviously, this is not the case in the high pressure areas like Mott, but I think you get the point.

Also, I just don't get the hang up over hunting PLOTs land. I hunted one PLOTs parcel two years ago and it was absolutely overrun by 4 different parties ranging in size from 8 to 12 people per party. My experience was so unpleasant; I doubt I would ever set foot on another parcel. Why most people would subject themselves to that kind of hunting is beyond my comprehension.

IMO, if you are in North Dakota to hunt pheasants and you are relying on PLOTs land, do yourself a favor and stay home to hunt in your own State, as your local opportunities have to be better than those afforded by these lands. This State is a freelancer's paradise and knocking on a few farmers' doors with your non-resident plates in view should allow you abundant opportunities.


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

I have never mentioned pheasant hunting in any of my posts.


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

> I talked with the people we stay with during our waterfowl hunts, we rent a small farm house. They have about 5000 acres of fields and CRP with small potholes. This is the first season they have EVER posted their land.


I stand corrected. I still don't get your hang up, sounds like you have your own little honey hole.


----------



## SiouxperDave25 (Oct 6, 2002)

Ron Schara: It's time for some equality in gouging
Ron Schara, Star Tribune

Published August 27, 2003 RON27

Gov. Tim Pawlenty asked an interesting question last week: Do we need to retaliate against North Dakota for its hunting laws against Minnesotans?

Gosh, I replied, I'd hate to see Minnesota's leaders acting as childish as North Dakota's leaders have been . . . but maybe it's time for a border war.

We could launch an invasion by sending Jesse, our most famous SEAL, under the Red River to erect signs in Fargo: No Fishing In Minnesota. Sounds silly? Yes, but silly laws against Minnesotans don't seem to bother North Dakota's lawmakers.

Here's the rub: This fall North Dakota has aimed more hunting restrictions at nonresident (read Minnesota) pheasant and waterfowl hunters. The first week of the waterfowl season, opening Sept. 27, is closed to all nonresidents (read Minnesotans). Nonresidents are only allowed to hunt waterfowl 14 days, of which only seven days may be hunted in certain zones. Nonresident pheasant hunters will be allowed to hunt only 10 days per license. Oh, by the way, the cost for a nonresident to hunt both pheasants and waterfowl has nearly doubled.

In their hurried passion to penalize foreign pheasant hunters (Minnesotans), the lawmakers mistakenly passed a law that bars nonresidents from all hunting (pheasant, deer, duck, etc.) from Oct. 11-17 on public or PLOTS lands. The PLOTS lands (from a program called Private Lands Open To Sportsmen) were leased with mostly license dollars from nonresidents, which means those who paid to hunt are now banned for a week.

To resident North Dakota hunters, the game of gouge the nonresident (read Minnesotans) makes sense. However, to North Dakota's dying farm towns and businesses, a law that keeps out nonresident hunters or caps the money they can spend must seem like lunacy. What's more, where is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in this North Dakota duck debacle?

Are North Dakota's restrictions fair when most of the state's best waterfowl production lands were paid for by all of America's duck hunters, not just North Dakotans? So . . . maybe it's time. Send in Jesse. For the 45,000 North Dakotans who buy Minnesota fishing licenses, here's what Gov. Pawlenty ought to do: raise the $34 fishing license to $100 for only 10 days of fishing.

We'll have a border truce when North Dakotans and Minnesotans are gouged equally.

Ron Schara is at [email protected].


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

jms, you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone who's followed these issues closely for several years that HB 1223 "started" the land grab process - that one week of residents only on state land that just happens to coincide with 2 of the 4 "MEA days" this year could somehow be viewed as the genesis for what is in actuality only the latter stages of commercialization and the resulting land grab that started several years ago. Sorry, but that's just plain absurd. Buying and leasing have existed and been accelerating for a number of years, and without some action, the duck clubs are coming with or without 1223. 1223 isn't even a pimple on the gnat's a$$ in the grand scheme of things.

And are you really suggesting that ND should check and set hunting/restriction dates based upon the happenings of the surrounding states (e.g. MEA). Maybe ND should make sure not to close pheasant season until after the MN, WI and IA kids go back to school after x-mas break? Want to make sure you can hit both openers for a species, then I guess MDNR should set theirs, and then NDG&F can set ours so as not to coincide. Tell you what, send in your personal calendar for '04 and let's get them working on making sure none of your scheduled events conflict with openers or any other days you wish to hunt. Again, pardon the bluntness, but I think this tops the arrogant statements I've heard from nonres's as to what ND should or should not be doing to accommodate their vacations.

If you want to give credit where it's due, you can also thank the involved ND sportspersons for giving you the opportunity to hook up with your ND buddies for deer hunting by getting a doe tag for $50 as opposed to the $150 that existed prior to this session. This bill was all but dead once, and then resurrected later for $100. We pushed and accomplished the $50 as originally intended. And you can thank the involved sportspersons for helping kill a bill that would have required all NR's to designate on their licenses the legal description of the land they were going to hunt (God only knows what that one would have done). And that if your daughter someday attends a college in ND, the involved sportspersons helped secure her ability to purchase any non-lottery license as if she were a resident.

Now I don't really expect you to have known all those things, and none of them may mean a hoot to you personally, but you should at least probably know the whole story before you start slinging crap on what ND sportspersons or their legislative efforts have done to "put out" you and your vacation plans this year.

Unchecked demand is the disease, the rest are merely symptoms. No different ND than any other state where commercialization took hold. Unless you want to grab all you can until it flames out, you should join those of us (including more than a few nonresidents) who recognize the only way to keep it from becoming purely a rich man's game in the not to distant future is to toss a little water on things.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Hey Minot!!! keep those B-52's ready & missle silos we may need em after all :lol: We got plenty of Fuel here in GF :lost: We could make em a bunch of potholes over there so maybe they will stay home :wink:

Jessie would end up in Winnipeg or get eaten by a Red River Cat Fish :lol:

If we ever really do the right thing & have zones with the correct amount of NR's per zone & spread them out, thru out the entire season - I bet they will whine so loud, it will scare the few remaing ducks they have over here :toofunny:

Anyone have a ND map that we can draw up zones that really make sense - Based on available rooms campgrounds & huntable lands (access) ??? Towns like Lakota - Devils Lake & Rugby use the two highways that cross in them for 4 zones - then they have to pick one & can stay in those towns- Say Hwy 2 & Hwy 1 - Hwy 20 & Hwy 3 
http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?zo ... o1aqyVc%3d

Then do the same south on Hwy 200 & again on I94 ??? - Is this :lame: concept of zones the only one that was on the table this past session ??? :******:

- Is the info available online where there are rooms in ND towns ???http://www.ndtourism.com/accommodations/

What other considerations (Besides MEA) both Minn & Wisc - which have both been overcrowded weeks back to back FOR YEARS !!! - Plus they want to overcrowd the opener :roll: - so for the 1st 3 weeks it's a nightmare in some areas - under hunted in others ??? Why is this so difficult to come up with ??? :eyeroll:

This is Sad :eyeroll: http://www.state.nd.us/gnf/hunting/nonr ... -2003.html

I should be enjoying the Heat & Pressure they are getting :roll: - BUT THE SAD Part is they will most likely over react & screw things up even worse in the Future :eyeroll:


----------



## james s melson (Aug 19, 2003)

Dan B. , I follow your thoughts and facts, don't take things so personally, I'm stating things from a point of view that is different from those of you who live in ND, if all views are aired some good may come of it. The deer hunting thing is a little tough to swallow, that would be like you coming to MN or WISC to duck hunt, keep the $50 doe tag.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

The commercialized hunting industry (guides and outfitters) loves us to be fighting among ourselves while they continue to lease up land for the use of their customers. As access continues to tighten they will be in even higher demand selling the publics game animals to the highest bidders. You cannot imagine how expensive it is to hunt in places I've lived like Texas and now Georgia. If you hunters want to see this occur in North Dakota keep targeting Non-residents and fighting among yourselves. Behind the scene the outfitters are laughing all the way to the bank greasing the palms of friendly politicians. Resident hunters are fools to think you've gained something with NR restrictions. All you have accomplished is to lose an ally against the real enemy the outfitters. Screwing the NR did not add one square foot of access to you, in fact it will actually decrease the amount of land available by forcing non-residents to employ guides which will encourage the outfitters to lease still more land and the spiral continues..... If you care about access ( if you don't then plan to give up hunting) you need to act now to stop the outfitter movement. You must form a hunter association and actively persue ledgislative action. All the land access dried up in less than 10 years in both Texas and Georgia when the leasing movement started. Look at your children and realize they will not be hunters if you don't act now!


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Bob good to see you found this site. You have some pretty level headed thoughts and I realize that you like many are aware of what is happening with G/O.

I would suggest that you take the time and go back and read thru the archives from the leg session and you will see that our intentions are not targeted at NR soley but as part of a overall approach to prevent the destruction of do it yourself hunters in this state both res and nonres.

Gov Hoven in a payback to Cannonball and other G/O wanted to open the chinise chicken season early. Hunters across the state went nuts realizing that it was a political move motivated by contributions. THis went down in flames. First real signs that he needs a vacuum to remove the sand from his ears from having his head in the sand, or other locations.

The issue resurfaced and compromises where made that included the PLOTS provisons for res. Currently unless you have established contacts or family or want to book in with a outfitter most prime hunting area is locked up on opener, so as a trade of for an additonal week of hunting 1 out of 3 or 4 years for the western part of the state this compromise was put in place.

Some floated the idea of a res only week but like many that do other openers we realized that this would prevent family and freinds form continueing traditons that have been long standing, and would not ahve opened any land up as it would be saved for the next week anyway.

We are not used to overnight camping to secure a spot to hunt nor do we want to become accustomed to it. The PLOTS lands in many area's beame zoo's and it was causing a great deal of tension and hard feelings across the board. Many organizations have taken money rasied at events to increase habitat for nesting etc. on these parcels only to have 20 or more people taking out the majority of birds in one morning.

Now most would say that you should be doing it for the wildlife and I would agree, but efforts put forth are ussually done to some personel gain even if expectations are small. When those are stomped on it makes fewer poeple willing to put forth the extra time and effort.

We had a very tough winter in 96-97 and also 97-98, at that time I was living out of state. I sent moeny back to the local wildlife clubs to purchase millet bales used in feeding wildlife over christmas I helped place and move some of these. A number of people from that organiztion did not know me until then, but did appreciate my efforts. Not many others that where NR at that time did the same. So I hope you realzie that the road runs both ways.

Keep posting and contributing because one never knows when or where a new bright may come from. Even when we think we know it all a breath of fresh air rolls in clearing away the foul smell we sometime create.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Ron Schara wants to talk about gouging.....I hate to beat a dead horse, but how about my 2 day out of state MN deer license for $143.00. I would like to see his face if ND charged $71.50 per day to hunt!!! This is the mess we are in because the politicians got involved in the game and fish regs. If they would have let game and fish personnel do there job we would have been status quo from last year and we all would be much better off!!! :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Hey ND charges over $200 for NR deer licenses *if you can even get one.*

Only 1% of any zone can be sold to NRs. Guides and outfitters can take half of this 1% before a lottery even begins. They can then charge what ever the market will pay ($1,000 - $3,000 per license).

Nonresident landowners (makes no difference if you are a retired farmer living in AZ or just bought land for hunting) can take the rest before the lottery begins -

Zone Z1 = 2000 buck licenses
= 20 buck licenses to NR 
- 10 buck licenses to the two outfitters looking to make cash
- 9 buck licenses to NR land owners
= 1 buck license to freelance NR

Now my NR application is for a party of two (son and I). Even if we get drawn early - rejected because to many applicants for remaining licenses.

Thus - a NR that does not OWN land or hunt with an OUTFITTER *may have *absolutely no statistical chance of ever getting a license.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Bob, the g/o industry does play a heavy role in this - their numbers are up approx. 500% since the beginning of the current boom cycle. I would guess that the acreage they control is up even more. But they're not the only problem. Raw hunter numbers have become a problem. Too much pressure on waterfowl has become a problem. Competition on available upland grounds has become a problem. Access has become a problem.

There's no easy fix. To do it right, all of these facets must be addressed. If g/o were outright banned, a continual rise in hunter numbers will still cause further private buying/leasing as there seems to be no end to those who can and are willing to obtain exclusivity, and the desire/need for exclusivity is directly related to pressure/competition/demand levels. Even with no nonres restrictions and the g/o's side-lined, the duck clubs would still come. On the flip side, even if every inch of ground was unposted, increasing hunter numbers/pressure will keep migratory birds away longer and send them packing sooner, resulting in less quality/opportunities for all.

There must be a point at which a quality resource reaches a breaking point and quality suffers. No magic bullet (g/o, improved access programs, etc.) can create a situation where high hunter numbers and pressure themselves aren't also a problem. Some insinuate the ND is hoarding her resources. 23,000 total waterfowlers in Sask; 43,000 total waterfowlers in SD; 64,000 total waterfowlers, nearly half nonresidents, in ND. Of these comparable resources, ND isn't carrying her load and then some?

The g/o's need to draw the attention they deserve on these issues, but you can not look at them as an opportunity to ignore total hunter numbers and pressure and other factors as part of the problem too. The mess we're in is complicated and involved - so are the fixes.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Pawlenty...pick on ND.What about SD.They have more restrictions than we do.How about Sask.Only res. can hunt pheasants.Plus it is res only the first 2 weeks for waterfowl.Then there is Man.Res can hunt geese all day.Non-res only till noon.How about Montana...Res. only the first week of pheasants.But I guess they don't count as only a meeting with ND 's govenor is what he wants.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Louisiana has over 100,000 hunters and a kill greater that 2 million ducks. This is 3 to 4 times the ND kill.

MN has over 100,000 hunters and a kill of 600,000 to 1 million ducks.

Guess ND will need to be knocked over to the MS flyway and have a shorter season if harvest is becoming too large :wink:

Canada is a story on itself and probably should not be used in your comparisons Dan. The erosion of hunters in Canada is absolutely huge. I'm pretty sure I posted the "drop" in a previous thread last year. MB and SK are losing hunters at an alarming rate. So few people (relative to the overall population) in Canada hunt that it is feared that anti-huting legislation will be introduced in Canada first not the US. Just look at the gun registration laws in Canada as an example.

Here are the numbers ducumented in Field and Stream magazine (Feb 02).

All Canadian waterfowl hunters: 
1978 : 524,926 
2002 : 197,584

Manitoba waterfowl hunters: 
1978 : 46,050 
2002 : 11,051

PH


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

PH, not sure what the MN numbers have to do with anything. I think we've pretty well establshed that, while MN has waterfowl opportunities, ND is in a different league, and I think you and the other 15,000 MN visitors would like to see it remain so.

The Canadian numbers are very relevant. The Sask number is all hunters: resident, non-resident and non-citizen. I've seen this someplace but can't verify so I haven't harped on it much, but I recall seeing data that total waterfowlers in Alb, Sask and Man combined roughly equal the number of ND total waterfowlers. Given the relative area involved, that says alot about relative hunter densities and pressure.

We all know that waterfowl have options and are pressure sensitive. With dramatically less pressure North and South, high and increasing pressure will cause the birds to make their own decisions in these issues by voting with their wings. And that won't be good for anyone with any interest in ND waterfowling.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

The only people really hurt by the nr restriction on plots land and the liscense changes to 10 days are the freelance average Joes that aren't made of money and are not the problem. It was vengeful feel good ledgislation that hurt all of the average Joe hunters res and Non res. Its another step in the incremental loss of access. Residents will be next and I'm speaking from the experience of living in Texas and Georgia,not guesswork. The entire south east is for all practical purpose pay hunting. If thats what you want in North Dakota then sit on your hands an do nothing. Your politicians are selling your hunting heritage to the highest bidders ( they won't be most of the guys on this website) and the process accelerates over time. You have less than 10 years of hunting left if you don't fire up your politicians.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

PH waterfowl that are hunted on the winter grounds do not continue south to Cuba in LA so they become more avalible to hunters. Put that kind of pressure on birds in the northen part of the flyway and they blow out for less pressured area's.

When visiting with guys that have hunted in both states you here of field being planted and then flooded to provide food sources to attract ducks and geese. Now with this happening those that are free lance hunters are being forced into blind lottery draws, this means sitting in line hopeing your number comes up for the day. Do you want this type of hunting up here?

There is not a single wildlife bioligest that I have spoken with that does not agree you cannot come the two area's simply based on hunter kills.

Sour grapes mke a persons face do some dtrange things but if you continue to eat those grapes your face can become permanetly displaced.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Bob, in many respects you're preaching to the choir.

There was nothing vengeful about the new nr restrictions. Many of us have been nonresident ND hunters and many of us hunt with nonresident family and friends every year. The 2-5's, it is hoped, will cut some hunter days. At the end, we'll see if that's true, because the license cost still represents a whopping $8.50 per day if every day is used or about $20/day if only weekend days are used. As far as the average joes are concerned, the PLOTS week-long restriction will provide quality hunting opportunities for the ND average joe that have not existed for many years. I Know several ND average joes who will be profoundly benefitted by this provision, and I make no appologies about it, especially when most NR's still have more time to hunt upland on state lands in ND than anywhere in their home states.

Many folks have been working their tails off to try and halt (not reverse) the commercialization trends. Without a doubt, these efforts will more greatly affect nonresidents. As with any state controlled and limited resource, a state should take care of her own first. But given game populations and resident hunter numbers, this will still mean wingshooting opportunities for nonresidents in ND superior to any other state.

You can argue about the efficacy of our efforts of last session, but those who have followed very closely know even these were not remotely possible in the past. We've got a ways to go, but made more progess last year than ever before. This thing, if it can be fixed, will take time, commitment and incremental adjustments. As one legislator told me, you're nuts if you think you can eat the apple in one bite.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Lousiana kills ducks - yes. Habitat - yes. Ducks have no place to go so they just get shot - Wrong!

I have hunted TX, LA, AR and MS. *Lived in (not just visited) the deep south *for years. Hunted with my southern friends on there leases and public land. Flooded rice fields - yes. But the gulf coast is full of untamed marsh open to all hunters with the gumption to chase ducks. Blinds/lottery draws what state is that :: WI, MI, or IL?????

The gulf states and MS delta region is a great wintering ground. Yes ducks (sh** ducks by many ND standards) begin to show up in TX and LA as early as August/September (teal) and October/November (wigeon, pintail, and grays -- gadwall to you).

They do NOT just end up sitting around these southern states just to get shot in the south. They can and DO migrate to Mexico and South America. They can and do move east and west, north and south.

Many, many teal, wigeon, and pintails spend their winters in sunny Mexico.

Many bluewing teal infact head to Central and South America using Louisiana as just a stop over.

Mallards on the other hand are fairly rare in Texas and Louisiana - they often short stop above.

Migration patterns are multi-directional not just North-South. Most cans and Tundra swans end up on the east coast not the gulf coast.

Weather, habitat conditions, and hunting pressure do influence migration patterns -- not sure anyone knows which one in the biggest factor.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I don't mean to be a jerk I'm just frustrated because I'm being dragged into an issue that seems to me to be a duck hunting issue and I haven't shot a duck since the sixties. I purposely hunt in a part of the state that is considered marginal for pheasants and grouse so I won't be in anybodies way. I don't drive all the way from Georgia to hunt in a crowd.
Last year I hunted from dawn to dusk for the first 5 days of the season and saw very few other hunters (average Joes or otherwise). I was actually suprised when I started visiting the various ND web sites and learned of this controversy. I don't know enough about the issue as it pertains to duck hunting to have a logical opinion. I do believe that the key to hunting in the future is additional access and farmers are the key. I believe it is reasonable to expect something in return for the nations taxpayer dollars subsidizing farming. 
The plots system must be expanded to include all farmers that accept subsidy monies. And I don't just mean in ND, I mean a national Plots system. Its a bold idea that I might not live to see but if I don't I fear I will live to see the end of hunting in the US. Fewer and fewer young people are getting into the sport due primarily to lack of access. The average age of hunters is growing older due to the cost. And hunting is a sport that if you don't get into it young you probably won't get into it at all. Any laws that limit access are a step in the wrong direction. 
A National plots system would have the added benefit of opening land for hunters that now travel to ND in search of hunting access. This is a huge country with room for all of us . If the hunting community nationwide got together and exerted pressure in congress it could accomplish a lot of good things for hunters and for farmers. 
Market hunting (the sale of game) was outlawed with the support and encouragement of sport hunters. Leaseing the hunting rights of the states game is in effect market hunting, the land owner just doesn't do the shooting but he is definitely selling the animal, it must be made illegal. To argue that its not market hunting is just an exercise in semantics. When we all have equal access (outfitters and freelancers) to any parcel of land then we will have accomplished something. We hunters have to join together now as brothers with a common goal or it will be too late.


----------



## Chesador (Aug 15, 2003)

BobM's got it correct. As hunting is commercialized, only wealthy will hunt (as in most of western Europe) and slowly the sport will die. I'm going to travel to ND to hunt this season. In VA and MD I hunt rivers as they are the last "public" hunting grounds.

Organize the resident and non-resident freelancers into an effective political organization. If you need an example just look at the NRA with its hunters, gun collectors, pistol lovers, competitive shooters, home protectors, and other gun people.


----------



## FACE (Mar 10, 2003)

Just got my latest issue of Mn Outdoor News and it seems that by reading the letters to the editor that North Dakota by limiting NRs access and increasing licence fees that ND is targeting Minnesotans since the majority of NR hunters in ND are from MN. Give me a break!!! My take on it seems to be that ND would like to protect the available resource for ND first and still be able to share the rest with all. Seems fair to me. Sure the G/Os are becoming a problem, but isn't that a seperate issue? One comment mentioned that if a NR owned property that they should only pay 1/52nd of the property taxes, sounds rediculous to me. Another thought was to have an uppermidwest hunt/fish stamp and require all to have to fund aquiring huntable land projects throughout the 5 state area. Anyway ever since I moved here to MN I have always noticed that many MNs(not all) sure seem to know how everyone else needs to run themselve but give very little though about how to worry about themselves! I personally wouln't mind seeing a more structured zoning in ND with limited permits for each zone. I know that would be complicated because for one thing migratory birds move anywhere that habitat is better due to environmental conditions, economic conditions, access, etc. but I feel that NR restrictions are in order because if in the future if anyone can at anytime come and hunt because it is inexpensive and no restrictions are imposed then that is what would happen, eventually say 75,000 to 100,000 NR hunters and no enjoyable hunting for residents! You would have to hang up the hunting at home and do what? Hunt Canada? Isn't that what FETCH mentioned doing now?
All I know is that MN has so many other probs to deal with I cannot believe closing off NRs for a week is worth wasting any breaths on! Arizona keeps looking better and better every day!! One can waterfowl hunt for over 100 days (2002 season just over 6000 waterfowlers), quail hunt any time of the day without seeing floods of hunters, dove hunt,etc. The only thing tough would be big game due to limited amounts of that resource. Best part of it is much of the state is public land!
Gettin tired, gotta go!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Actually that upper midwest hunt fish stamp sounds like a good idea to me. Only if all proceeds went to the purchase of permanent hunting lands even more cost effective, a permanent( I mean forever no loop holes) lease to the state as a Plots type land would be OK. It could make the dollars go alot farther and give a lot of farmers a shot of money they could use. I would even go so far as to make the money irresitable to the farming communtiy by making it non- taxable. The answers are going to have to be more access not limiting hunter numbers if you try the limit hunters route its going to end up a rich elite sport because you cannot compete with the forces of supply and demand. IF the monies were used in Minn. Wisconsin, Iowa ect for Plots type permanent leasese that would take a lot of pressure off of the Dakotas. I really like the idea because we hunters could establish a lot more accesible land on a one time payment permanent hunting lease basis than we could buying land. I think very few farmers could resist the temptation to "sell" their farm for .25 on the dollar taxfree when they actually get to keep the land. It could be big money for them and a lot of land access secured for us. I we had a stamp like this that was say a 100.00 for every liscense hold over 21 years old in every state in the midwest it would be one hell of an account quick. Comments???


----------



## Crabby (Aug 27, 2003)

:box: It sure seems to me that the 'sotas are now thinking of how to protect their fish from flooding into the nodaks freezers. Sometimes buy the trunkload over limit.

Isn't that how you taught us to think?


----------

