# EX ND NOW MN



## Park (Mar 14, 2004)

Here is My unasked for veiw.

I lived most of my life in ND and have lived the last 7 yrs in MN.

ND residents need to come to grips with why they have good hunting.

It has nothing to do with what they have or have not done.

It only has to do with the almighty FEDERAL TAX $$$$.

I grew up in and lived most of my life in ND. I remember what it was like before CRP!!!!!!!

ND would not have near the hunting for anything like they do now-- for any speices if it were not for CRP!!!!!!!

Do you think that the amount ND contributes to the Federal Budget through Income taxes, sales taxes on sporting goods or anything else can even come close to the amount the feds send ND for the CRP and other Farm programs. Lets not even go into the AIR Bases that are still there and realy obsolite.

Come on now what is the Population of ND --around 600,000!

Mayby the Buffalo Commons was a pretty good Idea.

Tony


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

If it keeps simple minds like you out so be it


----------



## ND decoy (Feb 1, 2003)

And people from other states need to come to grips with our laws. If it wasn't for ND most of those ducks that the other states hunt wouldn't be there.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Park, Buffalo Commons? Don't know what caused you to bail, but it's quality hunting that keeps a lot of us here. Does ND need one more reason for people to leave?


----------



## Park (Mar 14, 2004)

Fetch as usual you have to resort to personal attacks itstead of coming up with somthing intellagent to offer!!
Tony


----------



## Park (Mar 14, 2004)

ND Decoy

Most of the ducks in ND wouldn't be there without the farm program and CRP!!!

And most of the waterfowl that migrates down south does not come from ND!!

60% of ducks ---produced--- in the --continental US-- in a good year come from ND.

All of this is just going to backfire on the small guy. My grandfather told me 30 years ago that hunting was going to become a rich mans sport. I guess he will probably be right.

The problem is not non residents or minnesotans it is FEE HUNTING. The state should regulate them and put caps on them just like cities regulate liquor licenses.

I love to come back to my old hunting grounds each year and hunt with my family and freinds back there--- but maybe I will just have to check out some fall fishing instead.

By the way your all welcome (even you fetch) in Park Rapids this summer
for some fishing and recreation.

Tony


----------



## tumblebuck (Feb 17, 2004)

> The problem is not non residents or minnesotans it is FEE HUNTING.


Who do yo think is paying for the FEE HUNTING?? It isn't ND residents.


----------



## Park (Mar 14, 2004)

Dan B

I think it is family and jobs that keeps most people there.

When I lived there, which was over 25years, I just plain loved to hunt.

My brother and I were lucky enough to have jobs that we could make just about every weekend in the fall to a 3 dayer. It was great. But that is not why I lived there.

Moved over to the lakes country when I got the chance. Wanted to live in a small town and still make a living. I do not miss winters in the Valley.

ND has some major challenges with its economy and declining population. 
The national average for home ownership is approaching %70, in Fargo its about %40.

Tight lines
Tony


----------



## Park (Mar 14, 2004)

Tumlebuck

It is not me or any of the other minnesotans that I know that go over there.

Its weathy people from everywhere, MN ND and every other state.

When I lived there the problem out in the Mott area was mostly North Dakotans from the eastern part of the state paying for FEE HUNTING.

The advent of the wealthy FEE HUNTER slowly crept up on us since the advent of CRP!!!!!!!

I was there I watched it happen.

Tight Lines
Tony


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

"ND would not have near the hunting for anything like they do now-- for any speices if it were not for CRP!!!!!!!"

Park you obviously started hunting after we became the land of CRP and 30,000 non-res. hunters.

In the 60's,70's and 80's ND had MUCH better waterfowl hunting.Ducks were unmolested and everywhere...snow goose hunting was the best in North America.

If we could turn back the clock...I would take the pre CRP...pre 30,000 non-res...no G/O days anytime.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Where have I heard that before? "The CRP is paid for by the feds so it should be open to hunting." And yes Ken is right, the huntng was great in ND, pre CRP. I'm not sure about the exact date but it was around 1975 that ND was forced to limit NRs to 14 days of waterfowling. Brought about due to the wealthy NRs leasing land and huntng the whole season. Yes, there were not the large G/Os operating back then but the same things were happening then that WILL happen now if MN is successful in the law suit. I remember hearing the Arizona big shots that had leased my grandfathers house n a small town and had leased the best sloughs around tell me and my father that they just couldn't justify letting us hunt the area even when they weren't around. As it turned out they were subleasing to other hunters from other areas of the country. The point here is not that the farmers didn't have the right to do what ever they wanted to with their land, they did. The point is that history is setting itself up to repeat itself.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

I'm sorry :-? we did not need another post that I think is inaccurate --I have a feeling there is more to why you would feel that way ??? Either that or your more complex than we can understand :roll: either way you & many others need to come to grips with the fact that Federal funds to support Ag programs does not give you any say in what ND does or does not do

How old is your life 20 something ???

& you don't think our G&FD & many of us really (know) feel over crowding ND with hunters is bad for the resources ??? 
Your just trying to spin all this to make you feel ??? what ??? justified to be able to come & hunt as you did when you lived here ???

I'm glad you got that off your simple mind :lol:


----------



## jacks (Dec 2, 2003)

Hey Fetch sometime a simple mind is better than a narrow mind, like yours.


----------



## tumblebuck (Feb 17, 2004)

Park,



> I was there I watched it happen.


Just because I live in Minnesota, don't assume I don't know what I'm talking about. I, too, was there and watched it happen. I am originally a ND native. My Dad and I hunted southwest ND for many years before we saw the first "pay to hunt" sign.

I don't disagree that it is the wealthy "sportsmen" that are driving the pay to hunt craze. But you'll have a hard time convincing me that wealthy hunters from ND have caused the significant increase (from 20 to over 400...or something like that) in licensed "guides", leased land, etc....It is because of the influx of non-res hunters (5,000 in 1990 to 30,000 last year). I know the number of wealthy North Dakotans didn't increase by that percentage in ten years. Personally, I have never seen a vehicle with ND plates parked in the approach by a leased CRP field. I take that back....I have....but they either have an Enteprise or Hertz sticker stuck on them. Unless some residents pickup suddenly broke down and he just had to go hunting in a leased field, I doubt these people were from ND.

The overwhelming majority of ND residents will not pay to hunt!!! Period!!! It would be tough to make living as an outfitter when you depend on residents for your business.

A couple years ago, we stopped and talked to one of the ranchers on whose land we used to hunt. He finally gave in to the Cannonball group and agreed to lease his land. Guess what....since he has leased his land he knows of no ND people who have hunted on it. Washington, yep. Wisconsin, yep. Virginia, yep. Minnesota...yep. He offered to let us hunt again.....for $150 dollars of course. thanks...but no thanks.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

I see what your saying http://humwww.ucsc.edu/NEH/gertler.htm

:roll:


----------



## ND decoy (Feb 1, 2003)

I am not saying that crp isn't a big reason that bird numbers went up. But it's not the only reason.

If Minnesota wins this lawsuit, then ND will have to come up with some other way to regulate the NR hunters and things will only get tougher on you.

I also agree that the regulations should be alot tougher on the guides and outfitters. (The first law should be if you have a game violation you should never be able to run a hunting service again).

One of the things that I have learned since this has all come up is that the state of Minnesota only likes these laws when it fits them. The have had there own restrictions on moose, elk and youth waterfowl hunting plus if there governor was so against this he wouldn't have green lighted the proposed restrictions on NR fishing (which I could care less about) but now maybe we could put some restrictions on NR that come here to fish. I am sure that guys around Devils Lake would like the lines at the ramps around there to be shorter and with the access problems that we are going to see at Lake Sakakawea it would make it easier for us out here.

And I am not sure about this but I think people who own lake cabins in MN that are from other states pay higher taxes than the locals due. But I am not sure about that.


----------



## Park (Mar 14, 2004)

Ken W

I appriciate your thoughts but somtimes our memory might get a little distorted.

In the 80s we saw a major decline in ducks nationwide including ND. I remember not only smaller bag limits but reports on TV that they did not know how much longer we would be able to hunt Ducks. One year when we hunted by Woodworth on opener we never saw another hunter.

The Cass County Wildlife Club (Casselton) invested major $$ to try to help them out. Everything from electric fences to Delta Waterfowls Hen Houses. I was member.

Also when you combined CRP with the wettess decade in history is when all the records for waterfowl production began to fall in the 90s.

Ask the Game and Fish they will confirm.

Tight Lines and Skies full of Ducks!
Tony


----------



## Park (Mar 14, 2004)

Tumlebuck

I don,t disagree with what you said.

But I, like most Minnesotans are working stiffs also and I too refuse to pay to hunt. If it gets much higher I will have a hard time not only affording it but also justifying it.

In fact it would be alot cheaper to go to a game farm for pheasants then go out of state for them but as we all know it is not the same.

When I was still living there it use to burn me up that the Dept. of Tourism was advertising all over to come to ND and hunt.

Do you place any blame with them?

Tight Lines
Tony


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Ex Nd, now Mn. Says it all doesn't it! :bs:

If your statement is to be held for what it is worth, then the landowners should also not have a say what they should or shouldn't do with the land they own, as well as who should or shouldn't have the privilege of hunting there.

Is this what you are implying?

This topic is just another case of a sotan with penis envy!! dd:


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

> When I was still living there it use to burn me up that the Dept. of Tourism was advertising all over to come to ND and hunt.
> 
> Do you place any blame with them?


Yes Big Time !!! they have always been a political plumb division of ND State government in power

& they have used hunting & fishing as a very poor & wrong way to try to increase our economy - without real knowledge or thought of how it would affect ND residents & resources (I wonder is they ever really asked the NDG&FD if what they were doing was OK ???) - They have cartered to guides & outfitters for many years ( I have proof) even though less than 5 % that come to ND to hunt or fish use Guides --- wouldn't you think they could lead small towns & Regions to find real ways to help them attract Freelance hunters NOOOO mainly because they hire people that really donot understand hunting & fishing in ND - even though we do have some "Rightous Fishing" :roll: :wink: ........ :******:


----------



## Goldy's Pal (Jan 6, 2004)

Holy Cow!!!

Alaska Won 4-1!!! Wisconsin out!!!!!! :lol: oops wrong topic. :lol:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Park...I appreciate your ideas but my memory is just fine...I remember those late 80's and early 90's also...the reason for the drastic duck population had nothing to do with CRP...wasn't CRP introduced in about 85-86? And there were millions of acres.

But is was the driest I've ever seen it here...temps in the 100's.Every pothole around here was dry or close to it.Salyer Refuge was dry except for the main channel of the Souris River which was about 30 yds. wide.

Even with millions of acres of CRP...the population crashed.

The reason you didn't see another hunter in the 80's was because the 5,000 or so non-res at that time mainly came here to hunt geese.Now the 30,000 that come here,come to hunt ducks.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

I'm glad for Alaska just shows how tough the WCHA is- I never got to see Wisconsin this year

I'm glad we don't have to paly the goofers in the 1st round

This tournament is up for grabs - should be GREAT !!!

Goldy PM me where you sit - any others going ???
How did you get me talkin hockey in here :roll: :beer:


----------



## Bubba (Aug 23, 2003)

tumblebuck said:


> > The problem is not non residents or minnesotans it is FEE HUNTING.
> 
> 
> Who do yo think is paying for the FEE HUNTING?? It isn't ND residents.


I'd be willing to bet that ND has it's fair share of resident FEE paying hunters. OOPS, did I say hunters? I meant shooters, sorry.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Cannonball said it's clients are 90% NR, primarily corporations.


----------



## Goldy's Pal (Jan 6, 2004)

I can't possibly imagine living in ND and having to stoop to pay someone to find birds. I'd have my scouting shoes on non stop. Unless you are one lazy a$$ hunter in ND it shouldn't be too hard.


----------



## tumblebuck (Feb 17, 2004)

Park,



> When I was still living there it use to burn me up that the Dept. of Tourism was advertising all over to come to ND and hunt.
> 
> Do you place any blame with them?


Yes...to an extent. I also believe that the diminishing availability of QUALITY hunting in their home states has brought many to ND. When people travel to ND and realize what a hunter's paradise it is, do you think they don't tell their friends and neighbors? Thus the rapid increase in NR hunters...and diminishing quality.

The people I hang around with can't afford guided hunts either. Maybe we need new friends? But take a look at the post in the pheasant forum about the guy asking about the winter in SW ND. Even though everybody who replied to his post encourages him to forego the leased land routine and try freelancing....almost garaunteeing the guy a limit of pheasants....he's still going to use the lease because he doesn't want to have to worry about finding a place to hunt. That is what the residents of ND don't want to see happen to ALL of ND. Pay-to-hunt only benefits the wealthy.

Bubba.....if you read my later post, I didn't dismiss the fact that some ND residents pay to hunt. BUT, there isn't enough of them to support the rapid increase in guides, leases, etc.. to support them all. The client base has to be coming from somewhere else.....just read the other post so I don't have to explain it again.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

I could afford one or two - But I'd be tellin them how to do it & what their doing wrong & they would have to pay me consulting fees


----------



## coop0157 (Mar 16, 2004)

Speaking of CRP and fee hunting, here's one suggestion for legislative change:

CRP is a federal conservation program, right? However, fee hunting provides a private market-based incentive for landowners to voluntarily achieve the same goals by taking marginal land out of production, preventing erosion and creating quality habitat. So, if a landowner takes payments from the government through the CRP program, but also posts his land and charges hunters a fee, he's basically getting paid twice to conserve - there is a wasteful and unnecessary "overincentive" - the landowner is overcompensated.

So, suppose we don't go so far as to say CRP land can't be posted (after all, there is some value in conservation in and of itself), but maybe participation in the CRP program means you can't also collect from hunters. In other words, one of the terms of the CRP program should be that you can't allow fee hunting. The landowner should have to make the choice between the government payment and the private payment.

The benefit to this rule is that it would open up "marginal" land - what I mean is that there are landowners out there for whom it takes effort to attract hunters who are willing to pay to hunt their land - they have to market their land in order to earn that money. For some landowners, it might just be easier to take the CRP payment rather than to go to the effort involved in attracting fee hunters and monitoring their use of it.

At the same time, it puts an end to at least some wasteful government spending that is currently going to landowners who would conserve and create great habitat anyway in order to market it to fee hunters. That's money that could be going to others through CRP and creating even more great habitat.


----------

