# NR cap options



## Colt

Okay boys, you all know I hate the NR cap idea. However, I'm curious to see what kind of restrictions those of you who are in favor of it have to say.

If a cap were put into place, would you allow NR to hunt opening week for ducks and pheasant along with you guys?

Should the zone system be increased, or just done away with?

Should the 14 days be decreased to 7, and in return, no cap put into place.

Should G @ F establish more waterfowl rest areas?

No cap put into place, but increase license cost instead?

What about a leg tagging system instead of a cap. NR are allowed to kill X # of birds and that's that?

In another thread involving college students getting resident benefits........ Should that (can it be) changed?

What's the # on the cap that you want.

Let's hear it.


----------



## Colt

I should add, I would be willing to change from 14 days to 7 if in return I know that I would be able to come back every year.


----------



## Sasha and Abby

It ain't broke yet... lets not try and fix it anyway.


----------



## Colt

Sasha and Abby said:


> It ain't broke yet... lets not try and fix it anyway.


Well I agree, but there are many who do not. I just want to hear their opinions on what they want to see done.


----------



## Bob Kellam

http://www.bing.com/search?q=ND+NR+Duck ... =QBLH&qs=n

Been discussed for a long time, If you want other views check the link above.


----------



## wingaddict

Sasha and Abby said:


> It ain't broke yet... lets not try and fix it anyway.


Typical NR "All is rosey in my *one week a year* in ND". :roll:

When it _breaks_, it'll be too late to fix.

Hunter Pressure Concept. The concept for controlling hunter numbers based on habitat conditions and bird populations and designed by biologists.

Not politicians!!!


----------



## Rick Acker

The Game and Fish is getting away from Waterfowl Rest Areas. Two in my area have gone away in the last two years. Talked to the G & F agent about it and he said they were set up with Canada Geese in mind during the 70's and they don't see the need for them anymore???


----------



## Colt

Rick,

I find that surprising. I would think G @ F would want to establish more rest areas in hopes of keeping birds longer.

Not trying to stir the pot, just wondering if that means G @ F doesn't think hunting pressure is too intense?


----------



## wingaddict

"Rest areas" areas are a double edge sword. They may provide birds a spot to relax unmolested, But the fields around these areas become very prone to leasing, etc.


----------



## tclark4140

or like here in iowa u put in a rest area "refuge" and plant on the corn, and feed in the refuge so they really dont have to leave. there really isnt any field hunting around ours , as the birds dont have to leave the refuge


----------



## Chuck Smith

> "Rest areas" areas are a double edge sword. They may provide birds a spot to relax unmolested, But the fields around these areas become very prone to leasing, etc.


Don't think birds will adapt. I know of an area where birds will circle over the rest area and then move out way too high then feed on outlining fields.



> The Game and Fish is getting away from Waterfowl Rest Areas. Two in my area have gone away in the last two years. Talked to the G & F agent about it and he said they were set up with Canada Geese in mind during the 70's and they don't see the need for them anymore???


Loosing more habitat.... That will keep ducks around and pressure low. :eyeroll:


----------



## wingaddict

Chuck Smith said:


> "Rest areas" areas are a double edge sword. They may provide birds a spot to relax unmolested, But the fields around these areas become very prone to leasing, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't think birds will adapt. I know of an area where birds will circle over the rest area and then move out way too high then feed on outlining fields.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Game and Fish is getting away from Waterfowl Rest Areas. Two in my area have gone away in the last two years. Talked to the G & F agent about it and he said they were set up with Canada Geese in mind during the 70's and they don't see the need for them anymore???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Loosing more habitat.... That will keep ducks around and pressure low. :eyeroll:
Click to expand...

Losing habitat??? its not like they are bulldozing the areas or adding drain tile. One could look at it as more opportunity for areas to hunt.

As far as the birds "adapting" and flying to outlying fields, Do you think the guides, outfitters and other "money interests" wont adapt too?? 
Parts of the the Missouri River in south dakota are prime examples of G/O's and leases taking control of all the access around refuges (rest areas)


----------



## Chuck Smith

> As far as the birds "adapting" and flying to outlying fields, Do you think the guides, outfitters and other "money interests" wont adapt too??
> Parts of the the Missouri River in south dakota are prime examples of G/O's and leases taking control of all the access around refuges (rest areas)


When birds fly out in every direction 3-5 miles.... Guides won't be leasing all that land.


----------



## wingaddict

Chuck Smith said:


> As far as the birds "adapting" and flying to outlying fields, Do you think the guides, outfitters and other "money interests" wont adapt too??
> Parts of the the Missouri River in south dakota are prime examples of G/O's and leases taking control of all the access around refuges (rest areas)
> 
> 
> 
> When birds fly out in every direction 3-5 miles.... Guides won't be leasing all that land.
Click to expand...

Keep telling yourself that and it wont happen. :wink:


----------



## Maverick

> When birds fly out in every direction 3-5 miles.... Guides won't be leasing all that land.


That's your assumption Chuck! In reality it is what was happening in ND! Once leased you could consider that loss of habitat or opportunity as well!


----------



## Colt

Outfitters are a huge threat to all working class hunters.

How many waterfowl outfitters are there in ND? How easy/difficult is it to start an outfitting business in ND?


----------



## Chuck Smith

So you are telling me a guide is leasing up 18,000 acres of land. That is using 3 mile radius of a Waterfowl refuge.

Now I will concede that in a certain area it could be multiple guides this could happen. But not at every Rest area.


----------



## KEN W

wingaddict said:


> Losing habitat??? its not like they are bulldozing the areas or adding drain tile. One could look at it as more opportunity for areas to hunt.
> 
> As far as the birds "adapting" and flying to outlying fields, Do you think the guides, outfitters and other "money interests" wont adapt too??
> Parts of the the Missouri River in south dakota are prime examples of G/O's and leases taking control of all the access around refuges (rest areas)


That's exactly what GNF told me about more rest areas.It would just mean more leased land and fewer opportunities for everyone else.

I don't have a problem with the way it is now.....mother nature basically sets the number of NR hunters as evidenced by this years and last years numbers.

The first week of the season for Res only and the closing of state land the first week of pheasant are great perks for living here.

The only thing I dislike is the statewide license.It concentrates to many people in Units 1 and 2.I still can't believe the legislators in Unit 3 were dumb enough to vote for it.Plain fact of not knowing what they are doing. and listening to city chambers who want no restrictions at all.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com

Hunter Pressure Concept was based on biology, so with that being said I think that makes the most sense to let the Game & Fish regulate pressure, not politicians.

Also, zones would make sense if they, in fact, break up high pressure areas. The zones currently in place to me don't make much sense. But to anyone who follows the legislative sessions know, adding zones to any bill is a bill buster.


----------



## Maverick

Chuck Smith said:


> So you are telling me a guide is leasing up 18,000 acres of land. That is using 3 mile radius of a Waterfowl refuge.
> 
> Now I will concede that in a certain area it could be multiple guides this could happen. But not at every Rest area.


The outfitter in my area had 250,000 acres leased at his highest point! That is just one guy alone! It ranged from Steele to Kulm! Yes it does happen Chuck! The rest areas gave the Guides more areas to lease, as birds do use the refuges!

It was a catch 22! More area for the birds to rest but then the guides would target these areas for leasing as the birds will use them!



> It would just mean more leased land and fewer opportunities for everyone else.


That's exactly what the Game and Fish told me as well!


----------



## Sean Ehmke

tclark4140, in my opinion that place has a serious management issue and the duck hunting was better last year when there was more open water.

Sorry didn't mean to get off the subject

If the surrounding states would focus more on "rest areas" then I would think there wouldn't be a need to travel to SD or ND as much. Being from Iowa I wish the west part of the state would focus more on that. Until then I see more people heading north. Just my :2cents:

Sean


----------



## Chuck Smith

250,000 acres.......that is insane. But I think you have mentioned that outfitter is shady and has had issues with G&F before.


----------



## mallard

Why is this topic even being discused? The hunter pressure concept was a great idea. The sportsman had their azzes handed to them twice the year that bill went to the ledgislature. The status quo will remain the same until the ag community gets behind it.


----------



## dosch

Cap and trade to South Dakota!


----------



## Drakekiller

The HPC lost by ONE vote. Rep. Ron Iverson said he hit the wrong button. The one that really ticked me off was when Tony Dean came here to testify to the NRC. The Devils Lake tourism dept asked him to come. By the way they were paying him 30 K a year to promote DL. He said the zones and cap was just plain bad idea. I wish someone on the committee would have asked him if he had ever testifeid in SD where he lived against SD's zones and 6 K cap in SD. Also, their lottery and their 10 day waterfowl license.


----------



## wingaddict

Drakekiller said:


> The HPC lost by ONE vote. Rep. Ron Iverson said he hit the wrong button. The one that really ticked me off was when Tony Dean came here to testify to the NRC. The Devils Lake tourism dept asked him to come. By the way they were paying him 30 K a year to promote DL. He said the zones and cap was just plain bad idea. I wish someone on the committee would have asked him if he had ever testifeid in SD where he lived against SD's zones and 6 K cap in SD. Also, their lottery and their 10 day waterfowl license.


BINGO

Mallard I wouldnt call one vote an "*** handing", But more needs to be done next time!


----------



## barebackjack

I made this in about 5 minutes. MORE units, allocate tags based on habitat conditions for that year, pre-season numbers, etc etc. Kind of looks ALOT like how the current deer gun tags are done, doesn't it? Pretty simple solution to spread out the pressure.

Some units may have 3,000 licenses allocated, some maybe only 500. You would get a first choice, second choice, and I don't know, maybe a third choice. Total licenses available could add up to 30,000 for all I care. But a plan like this would do away with alot of the pressure problems.

Our current "zone" plan, if you want to call it that, is a joke.


----------



## USAlx50

I can tell you one thing for sure BBJ, if i got stuck in quite a few of those zones, Id stay where ever I end up living or go to a different state/province.


----------



## barebackjack

USAlx50 said:


> I can tell you one thing for sure BBJ, if i got stuck in quite a few of those zones, Id stay where ever I end up living or go to a different state/province.


Thats the point.

Not to many guys would apply for that SW unit and several other less desireable. And, there likely wouldnt be many licenses for it anyway. So, a license for that unit, would probably be guaranteed.

Now, desireable units, like around DL, Jamestown, Valley, etc etc etc, will have more applicants, but probably a few more licenses. Not everybody that applies is going to get in, which means theyll most likely go to their second choice.


----------



## Blue Plate

The current Zones are a joke, no question.

I'm fine with 2 - 5 day periods or even one 5 day period for $80 as a non-resident. I'm not sure how I feel about a cap. The one in 2002 was really high at 30,000, maybe one at 25K is reasonable. There seems to be around 25k non-residents that hunt ND in any giving year.


----------



## FLOYD

I would have to believe if you put it at 7 days total which can either be split into 2 periods or not, the license numbers would drop a little on their own. A certain percentage would "take their ball and go home" if we don't let them hunt for 14 days. It might not be a large percentage, but some......


----------



## Colt

FLOYD said:


> I would have to believe if you put it at 7 days total which can either be split into 2 periods or not, the license numbers would drop a little on their own. A certain percentage would "take their ball and go home" if we don't let them hunt for 14 days. It might not be a large percentage, but some......


As a NR who is VERY OPPOSSED to a cap, I would be willing to accept being limited to 7 days as long as it means I can come back every year.


----------



## Colt

barebackjack said:


> I made this in about 5 minutes. MORE units, allocate tags based on habitat conditions for that year, pre-season numbers, etc etc. Kind of looks ALOT like how the current deer gun tags are done, doesn't it? Pretty simple solution to spread out the pressure.
> 
> Some units may have 3,000 licenses allocated, some maybe only 500. You would get a first choice, second choice, and I don't know, maybe a third choice. Total licenses available could add up to 30,000 for all I care. But a plan like this would do away with alot of the pressure problems.
> 
> Our current "zone" plan, if you want to call it that, is a joke.


With all due respect bareback, your zone system kinda sucks.


----------



## barebackjack

Colt said:


> barebackjack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I made this in about 5 minutes. MORE units, allocate tags based on habitat conditions for that year, pre-season numbers, etc etc. Kind of looks ALOT like how the current deer gun tags are done, doesn't it? Pretty simple solution to spread out the pressure.
> 
> Some units may have 3,000 licenses allocated, some maybe only 500. You would get a first choice, second choice, and I don't know, maybe a third choice. Total licenses available could add up to 30,000 for all I care. But a plan like this would do away with alot of the pressure problems.
> 
> Our current "zone" plan, if you want to call it that, is a joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect bareback, your zone system kinda sucks.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, and I mean with all due respect. So do NRs.

I threw it together in 5 freakin minutes. :roll:

You dont like it? Did I screw up your top secret hot spot that only you know about? :roll:


----------



## Chuck Smith

Bareback....

That is a good idea (but would need work). That is kind of what I was talking about....the hard hit areas you apply for a "permit". If you dont get drawn you have to hunt outside of those "permit" area's. It is like a NR can buy an all state license. But if you want to hunt the hard hit area's.....ie DL, James, Gackle, Valley, etc. Those could be permit areas and you need to draw a "tag" to hunt that area. This would make people spread out more. This would or could make people find new "untouched" area's that see little or no hunters. People could find that new "honey hole".

Here is a thing when people were talking about less days. Last leg session what ever the bill was to let the NR break up the hunting periods into more days. I suggested (it was met with hostility) that in fact you raise the NR days alloted to 15 and could split it up into 3 periods. But a NR could not hunt more than 10 days in a row and the last 5 day would have to be used after a certain date.......ie After thanksgiving. Like I stated it was met with hostility. But look at it... In fact most people would only hunt 10 days.....instead of 14. So to most it would mean 4 less days afield than now. Plus most NR would not gripe too much because it would give them an extra day and also most NR only hunt 5 days and travel two.

This idea you could also twist around so people could not hunt 10 in a row and need at least a 3 day window in between the first split and then still have the last 5 days be used after a certain date.

Like I stated it is a way to tinker with it and it is attractive to all parties. Less NR days hunting in a row or during OCT. But gives the NR an option to come back during the late season......where weather plays a huge role and you could miss your window by a day.


----------



## wingaddict

Id have to say that'd be pretty close BBJ, maybe make the SW portion of the state all one unit.

Zones would benefit more small towns IMO.


----------



## barebackjack

wingaddict said:


> Id have to say that'd be pretty close BBJ, maybe make the SW portion of the state all one unit.
> 
> Zones would benefit more small towns IMO.


Thats exactly what it is, an idea. Units by no means would need to follow the hasty borders I threw on there. Units may change year to year as conditions change.

In my mind, its a solution that would appease both sides. Spread out and alleviate some of the pressure on high pressured areas, while at the same time allowing NRs to come every year. Yes, they MAY not get to go where they want, but at least they can still have the option of coming.


----------



## Kris brantner

i got an idea. ban all non residents for a total of one year. including fishing, duck and phesant hunting, and see how that goes. see how many diners struggle and motels and cabins dont fill up, yeah lets limit the days after that. kinda like the energy companys taking out ads on tv and radio telling them to use less of their product. dont make much sence does it. if you want pressure, HAHA! come hunt the public land here on the mississippi river. i can assure you you dont know what pressure is


----------



## Jmnhunter

I only saw resident duck hunters on opening day; after that it was any other state after that...


----------



## wingaddict

Kris brantner said:


> i got an idea. ban all non residents for a total of one year. including fishing, duck and phesant hunting, and see how that goes. see how many diners struggle and motels and cabins dont fill up, yeah lets limit the days after that. kinda like the energy companys taking out ads on tv and radio telling them to use less of their product. dont make much sence does it. if you want pressure, HAHA! come hunt the public land here on the mississippi river. i can assure you you dont know what pressure is


English please.


----------



## barebackjack

Kris brantner said:


> i got an idea. ban all non residents for a total of one year. including fishing, duck and phesant hunting, and see how that goes. see how many diners struggle and motels and cabins dont fill up, yeah lets limit the days after that. kinda like the energy companys taking out ads on tv and radio telling them to use less of their product. dont make much sence does it. if you want pressure, HAHA! come hunt the public land here on the mississippi river. i can assure you you dont know what pressure is


This discussion isnt about mississippi river pressure, wisconsin pressure, MN pressure. Its about ND pressure.

You dont like what things have become where you live, do something about it.

We dont like the way things have become in many other parts of the country either, and we dont like what its starting to become here, thats why were trying to do something to stop that from happening here.


----------



## Duckslayer100

Exactly BareBackJack! This isn't about pressure in Ole' Miss, it's about pressure in Nodak!


----------



## Jmnhunter

revolt to the G&F


----------



## Blue Plate

There is no pressure in North Dakota. In all my years of hunting ND I've never had a problem with other hunters. It's not about hunting pressure, it's about greed. Greed based on a few inDUHviduals.


----------



## wingaddict

Blue Plate said:


> There is no pressure in North Dakota. In all my years of hunting ND I've never had a problem with other hunters. It's not about hunting pressure, it's about greed. Greed based on a few inDUHviduals.


Care to let us all in on this "unpressured area" if your so confident and not worried about any "pressure" you'll gladly reveal it.

or will you play the "no posting of names" card.


----------



## barebackjack

Blue Plate said:


> There is no pressure in North Dakota. In all my years of hunting ND I've never had a problem with other hunters. It's not about hunting pressure, it's about greed. Greed based on a few inDUHviduals.


I bet if we jumped in the way back machine theyd say the same thing about many other places that 20-30 years ago had decent hunting, that now have hunting so crappy the locals have to go out of state to hunt.

If you cant grasp that, then DUH right back at ya. :roll:


----------



## Matt Jones

This thread is another example of people bickering over something that will never change.

2003 was the only real chance of a there being a significant change in regulations. After that people have become too complacent. The status quo is ingrained enough now where the regs aren't going to change favorably to residents.

The only changes you might see in the regs are them becoming more liberalized toward NR's. Just look at this past year. The majority of legislation for hunting was all pro NR's. It came down to the very last minute before enough residents got involved to stop them.

Resident hunters are on the defensive, not offensive. If you think there's any chance of passing more restrictive regs you obviously haven't followed the past several legislative sessions...things are moving in the opposite direction.

Hunters around the state simply don't care enough. I know a lot of guys who bytch about NR's non-stop. I told them about the legislation this past spring and they were too lazy to write their reps. Most of them didn't even know who their reps were...

...and yet their bytching never stops. Non-resident hunters, you have absolutely nothing to worry about. The resident hunter lobby is extremely weak and apparently consists mainly of guys complaining online who do nothing every couple years when the legislature is in session.


----------



## Blue Plate

wingaddict - SE ND.

barebackjack - Minnesota at one point had amazing hunting that was before every county dug drainage ditches, thus draining all the shallow wetlands. Along hwy 7 from Montevideo to Hutchinson, every few miles there is a drainage ditch. All the fields are tiled. Anytime it rains guess where the water ends up? Minnesota's poor duck hunting has ZERO to do with pressure and everything to do with terrible habitat and poor planning by the state and counties.

All the people that complain about "pressure" should findfarmers who post their land. Problem solved. That's what I do and I live hundreds of miles away. Now I just get a call from my ND farmer friend wondering when I'm coming out.


----------



## Blue Plate

I'm sure you guys are going to overwhelmed by non-residents this weekend.


----------



## Sloughy

I find it ironic that all the people who cry about this topic, both here and at the capital, are from the the Big 3 of Fargo, Bismarck and Grand Forks. How about looking at the opinion and more importantly the economic impact of the small town folks in your state? The motel, diner, hardware store, gas station, bar, liquor store, etc... owners don't share your hardline opinion on this topic. You folks want your cake and the ability to eat it with a cherry on top. Large salaries, big city life, nice green grass on your golf course and unpressured fields to hunt. Doesn't quite work as nicely for those that live in rural North Dakota who enjoy the boost to the local economy from the out of state hunters.

I'm thinking my next vacation is going to be in your backyard in Fargo. You know, pitch a tent... have a nice bonfire, do a little drinking, harvest some nightcrawlers. Do you object to me recreating in your backyard in the city? Those rural fellow residents may just start having a tougher time granting you permission to those golden fields choke full of untouched birds when you vote their seasonal income away.

Get real and quit crying about another pickup truck knocking on a farmer's door for permission to hunt a migratory species that you don't own anymore than a non-res.


----------



## jcnelsn1

Kris brantner said:


> i if you want pressure, HAHA! come hunt the public land here on the mississippi river. i can assure you you dont know what pressure is


This argument is always made, but it is not a valid one. I agree that the pressure is not as bad here as some states. That is why I and others moved here and why others stay. WE DO NOT WANT IT TO BECOME LIKE OTHER STATES.


----------



## Colt

Sloughy said:


> I find it ironic that all the people who cry about this topic, both here and at the capital, are from the the Big 3 of Fargo, Bismarck and Grand Forks. How about looking at the opinion and more importantly the economic impact of the small town folks in your state? The motel, diner, hardware store, gas station, bar, liquor store, etc... owners don't share your hardline opinion on this topic. You folks want your cake and the ability to eat it with a cherry on top. Large salaries, big city life, nice green grass on your golf course and unpressured fields to hunt. Doesn't quite work as nicely for those that live in rural North Dakota who enjoy the boost to the local economy from the out of state hunters.
> 
> I'm thinking my next vacation is going to be in your backyard in Fargo. You know, pitch a tent... have a nice bonfire, do a little drinking, harvest some nightcrawlers. Do you object to me recreating in your backyard in the city? Those rural fellow residents may just start having a tougher time granting you permission to those golden fields choke full of untouched birds when you vote their seasonal income away.
> 
> Get real and quit crying about another pickup truck knocking on a farmer's door for permission to hunt a migratory species that you don't own anymore than a non-res.


Careful now, there are some on this site that say the revenue brought into ND from NR doesnt add up to a hill of beans and has no possitive effect on ND's rural economy. :roll:


----------



## Chuck Smith

> This argument is always made, but it is not a valid one. I agree that the pressure is not as bad here as some states. That is why I and others moved here and why others stay. WE DO NOT WANT IT TO BECOME LIKE OTHER STATES.


This argument is always made too.....people don't want ND to become like other states......it was not so called pressure....it was loss of habitat!

If the Corp of Engineers did not do a number on the Old Mighty Mississippi with the lock and damn system....The mississippi flyway would be booming with birds. If the farmers in the Western part of MN did not drain tile every piece of ground, drain shallow lakes, cut in canals and drainage ditches.....that part of the area would be a bread basket for nesting birds. If the MN lakeshores did not get developed in to cabins, lake homes. The nesting habitat, small crustations (fresh water shrimp), etc get cut down, dredged so people could have lake frontage or sandy beaches, etc. More habitat destroyed.

But laws allowed people to do these things. So people did.
It was too late before action was taken on Habitat front. It was not too many hunters in the state....but loss of habitat.


----------



## KEN W

Sloughy.....maybe you should think about this again.....

I lived in a small town in NC ND for 30 years.I don't and didn't know 1 owner of a motel, diner, hardware store, gas station, bar, or liquor store that hunted waterfowl.Not one.Same with the farmers.....they all hunt deer and some pheasants but none hunted waterfowl......of course they want as many NR and Res as possible for their business......but do they really know what hunting pressure is????No chance. :eyeroll: :eyeroll:

To bad most legislators don't know either. :eyeroll:

Which is why the GNF waterfowl biologists are the people to listen to.It is their job more than any other people in or out of ND.


----------



## Drakekiller

Here are some facts from study done in 2001-2002 NDSU Resident and Nonresident Hunter Angler Expenditures, Characteristis, and Economic effects 2001-2002.
Total spending in rural areas. Resident 213.4 mil. NR 48.4 mil.
Total spending hunting and fishing resident 402.7 mil. NR 65.9

Waterfowl hunters 2003
Canada-Three praire prov. Manitoba,Sask.,Ont. = 26,930 Canadians, NonCanadian 18,512. Total 45,442
ND Resident 30,771,NR 26,066 total=56,837. First year after license split.
SD Resident 27,942, Nr 4,717. Total=32,659
Most waterfowl hunting in ND is done on the East half of the state. Compare the differant size of that to the three praire prov.
No small town in ND is going to be saved by hunting,period. Larger farms and less farmers are hurting population in these towns. Real economic development-jobs and familys moving there is the only way.

This issue has been around for years. That fact is quality of hunting is getting worse every year. If we want to keep ND a great place to hunt something will have to change. Do we want to turn in to a state like Texas? Or do we want to keep it as good as we can for the common man? The only way in my opion would be a floating cap (HPC). I will try to get someone to put it up. It breaks thing down by three Water stages Wet,Moderate, and dry. The appropriate table,it is a simple matterto look at the number of resident hunters the previous year to determine the number of NRs allowed after adjusting for pressure.

Looking at the table and we had 36,000 resident hunters

In wet Conditions
20,588 NRs
Moderate Conditions
13,971 NRs
Dry Conditions
6,618

If resident hunters went down to 30,000 it would change to
Wet
25,000 NRs
Moderate
18,382
Dry
11,029

A ton of reseach was used to come up with the HPC by the G&F experts. Not just putting a random cap number. The odds of getting a NR license would be pretty good. Would you guys be alright with not getting a license one out of ten years in exchange for improved hunting? We want Nrs to come and enjoy the great outdoors of ND, but can not keep going down this road or we will all loose.


----------



## Sloughy

Do all you residents want to sacrifice anything in this debate? You probably don't want zones do you? Probably don't want your license fee to increase do you? Don't want to be limited to the number of days you can hunt do you? I haven't seen one thread on this topic from a resident that wants to be part of this solution you think is just at wildfire level.

The points on this topic make me shake my head in disbelief. Always one way with the Fargo and Bismarck folks when it comes to their 100% right as a citizen of the great state of North Dakota to legislate their access to their passion.

Along these thought processes North Dakotans shouldn't be allowed to sell shale oil out of state for more than 10 days a year, shouldn't be allowed to hit the beaches of Florida between October and May due to overcrowding, can only fish in Minnesota from 1 am to 2:45 am on odd days in months that begin with a J, can't buy vegetables from California... sounds pretty ridiculous doesn't it? I agree, but you should actually read what you provincial thinkers write and you just may start to see the light.


----------



## Matt Jones

Sloughy said:


> Do all you residents want to sacrifice anything in this debate?


What debate? Oh, you mean the constant online banter that has no real-world applications?

Nothing is going to change...regs stand where they are. I don't know why all you non-residents let yourself get sucked into these discussions. If the residents were going to do something, don't you think they already would have done it?

Bottom line: Non-residents hold the upper-hand. If there's going to be any change in the regs in the future, it will most likely favor non-residents.

Whenever you see guys complaining like this realize it's just some residents blowing smoke and venting their frustration. That's it. They aren't actually going to do anything.

"We're going to create a cap!"

"We're going to make more zones!"

"We're going to have a lottery!"

Blah, blah, blah, blah......no you're not.

This has been going on for the better part of a decade now. There's been four sessions held ('03, '05, '07, '09) since it started and nothing that would limit licenses has happened. What does that tell you non-residents?

That the resident hunters don't have a dog in this fight anymore. It's over. Sleep tight because nothing is going to change.


----------



## Drakekiller

Hey Matt
If residents did not get fed up in 2002 things would have stayed the way they were. Instead what changed in 2003. License split,resident duck openner, resident plots week, Guide and Outfitter bill.


----------



## Matt Jones

Drakekiller,

I didn't say nothing was accomplished. There are things that have happened that are noteworthy. But as I said in my post, the main issue then, and the issue that is constantly debated online, is the number of non-resident hunters.

That hasn't changed. It's still wide open with a mentality of first come first serve and no one being left out.

Let's be honest, that was, has, and always will be the goal. Reducing hunting pressure via lowering the amount of non-resident hunters.

I get tired of seeing these debates because at this point they seem delusional. You have a bunch of residents who puff out their chest while complaining about all the non-residents and then fantasize about what they are going to do to them with fictional regulations. All at the displeasure of non-residents reading it. When the reality is, the residents can't and won't do anything to limit the number of non-residents who come to ND.

Political movements are short lived. Some accomplish their goals and some fail...and then peter out. This one was the latter of the two. Anyone who was involved in '03 knows (now looking back) that was the time. The spark was there from pheasantgate and people were polarized to actually get something done.

That spark has been gone for some time.

I enjoy reading these discussions more than a "best call" or "best decoy" thread, but they can be hard to stomach. So many guys bytching about something they want to see changed...who don't care enough to take five minutes to write their representatives. What a waste.


----------



## Drakekiller

Matt
I disagree that nothing has changed in last four sessions that has s
effected pressure. I do not think that you hunt pheasants much. The license split has for sure eased some pressure. For one, alot of Nrs living near the border hunted pheasants every week end and alot hunted most week ends.
When it comes to waterfowl. After the split licenses fell from 30 K to about 25 K. A lot of the 5 K decline was for because instead of $10 more $ it changed to $85. How many of the 5K do you think would have hunted waterfowl? Hard to say, but I think maybe half would have. I do agree that pheasant gate did get the residents fired up. Just like in the 70s when big corps were leasing up all the prime land around DL. Thats when NR waterfowl license changed the first time. In 1975 they put in 9 zones. 1976-77 =6 zones,1978=7 zones,1979-1984=8 zones,1985=5 zones,1986-95=4 zones,1996-2002=3 zones. The Gov. set zones. No law needed to add as many as he sees fit. Pretty sure he can set caps also like he did in 2002.


----------



## Matt Jones

Since we are on the duck forum, I assumed we were talking ducks or waterfowl.

I'm sure pheasant hunters have dropped some. I know east-siders that the license split stopped them from making a trip or two. I'm sure that when you apply that to Moorhead and Brekenridge it is significant.

Kevin, I know you've been dedicated as have a lot of other people when it comes to legislative issues. There's a lot of guys who put a lot of time and sweat into trying to make something happen. I feel bad for them having their effort go for next to nothing.

But there comes a time to realize defeat. Let's face it, resident sportsmen are much better at bytching then they are contacting their reps. I think it's sad that I, not being home-grown here, did a lot more than the guys I've met from here who complained mainly by simply writing a few emails throughout the years.

SB2048 was the benchmark. Seven years later efforts have fallen well short of it. That's all I'm saying. Hopefully my honesty will pizz a few people off and maybe light a fire under their azz. But as I see it, this movement is over...resident sportsmen lost. Which is why these debates are both amusing and frustrating...as much as they are pointless.


----------



## AdamFisk

Matt Jones said:


> Hopefully my honesty will pizz a few people off and maybe light a fire under their azz. But as I see it, this movement is over...resident sportsmen lost.


I deleted my initial thoughts a couple different times after letting my BP get back to normal....You succeeded in pissing me off. Take your negative attitude and shove it up your *** Matt.

:eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:

I usually keep my thoughts to my self on these BS debates, but your posts on this topic are a flat out joke and very offensive.


----------



## Matt Jones

Why?

The truth hurts maybe?

Feel free to point out where I was wrong on anything I said.


----------



## Drakekiller

Matt
Ya,I get sick of people *****ing and doing nothing about what they believe in. But, you would be surprized what you can do if you put your mind to it. Sad to hear how thats you feel. Maybe thats whats wrong, alot of people feel like you.
Sloughy
I would have to say in years of reading posts on these issues, that has to be the lamest post I have ever seen. You leave me speachless. Oh my God.


----------



## Kris brantner

wingaddict said:


> Kris brantner said:
> 
> 
> 
> i got an idea. ban all non residents for a total of one year. including fishing, duck and phesant hunting, and see how that goes. see how many diners struggle and motels and cabins dont fill up, yeah lets limit the days after that. kinda like the energy companys taking out ads on tv and radio telling you to use less energy. dont make much sence does it. if you want pressure, HAHA! come hunt the public land here on the mississippi river. i can assure you you dont know what pressure is
> 
> 
> 
> English please.
Click to expand...

dont really know any other way to put it?


----------



## Kris brantner

Drakekiller said:


> Here are some facts from study done in 2001-2002 NDSU Resident and Nonresident Hunter Angler Expenditures, Characteristis, and Economic effects 2001-2002.
> Total spending in rural areas. Resident 213.4 mil. NR 48.4 mil.
> Total spending hunting and fishing resident 402.7 mil. NR 65.9


hmmm... looks like our total spending for just a couple of days of hunting in nodak, is about 1/4 as much as the residents. o ya but they live there all year long! seems like we are spending a lot more per day to hunt there. i know you residents dont give a crap about how much money we bring, its all about how many birds YOU can kill. if you are a good enough hunter, its not a problem out there. like someone else said. you are the residents, i have made many friends with farmers out there. sit and talk to them for hours sometimes. why is it that you cant get sole permission on posted land? get to know a couple of them bigger farmers with thousands of acres. never very hard for us! but now you will probably say that is selfish to the other resident hunters, to lock up land. you guys sure dont like it when outfitters do it, but hey i do it too. give them a gift card to tractor supply for a couple days of hunting. dont cost me 5k but it gets me permission to hunt the land.

o ya by the way. we stay about an hour out of devils lake. im not afraid to say it. ya sure its a common place, but we feel safe around there, seeing how only a few years ago most of the state was pretty dry. always a few divers to hunt on the lake if all else fails. only once in 8 years have we ever been involved with other hunters wanting the same spot. sure you see them driving around scouting, which i think ****** you off more than any "pressure" or whatever you are whining about out there. i will be the first one to agree, that 75% of the nr hunters are complete retards. hunt, get drunk, repeat. i can see how it would make some people mad seeing the stupid crap they do. ive seen soem guys shoot ducks out of their truck windows. those people dont deserve to hunt the great state of nd. but it really ****** us diehards off, when we pay 100 dollars to hunt 14 days, and you still say that is too long, or if we arent lucky enough, that we shouldnt get to hunt at all.


----------



## KEN W

Matt is right to a certain extent.All the major changes in NR hunting were made 5-6 years ago.Any attempts to change them have gone down to defeat except granting the statewide license for more money.That was made more palatable by puting the exra $40 into PLOTS.

Resident hunters seem to be satified with the way it is since no bills that would make them more restrictive have gotten anywhere.A tagging system bill was introduced in the last session but never even made it to a hearing.

Any big changes to make them less restrictive have been shot down,although the one to make it 3 five day periods got close the last session.

As he says......there probably won't be many changes in the future either.

I do disagree with Matt's gloom and doom statements about resident hunters trying to change things.If there is a good idea out there it is still worthwhile to pursue it.You never know unless you try.


----------



## duckp

This should help.
http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/hunt ... rth_dakota


----------



## Goldy's Pal

Duckslayer100 said:


> Exactly BareBackJack! This isn't about pressure in Ole' Miss, it's about pressure in Nodak!


Mighty Miss.


----------



## snowbus

We strictly field hunt and have found fewer hunters each year. I also hunt close to a major city and do not find difficulties finding a field.

Perhaps weather, migration and factors influence a departure? Would make a great research project funded by both entities with input on criteria of observations during the 60+ days.


----------



## USAlx50

Kris brantner said:


> why is it that you cant get sole permission on posted land? get to know a couple of them bigger farmers with thousands of acres. never very hard for us! but now you will probably say that is selfish to the other resident hunters, to lock up land. you guys sure dont like it when outfitters do it.


Guess you answered your own dumb question there. I know lots of farmers with thousands of acres. They will let me hunt anytime I ask, providing that I ask first. Some might even hold off on giving permission to someone else if they know I intend to be out there scouting/hunting on a givin day. There isn't always birds in any specific area though and you have to put on miles in new areas sometimes. When you find new areas is always nice to be able to hunt stuff instead of being told no because billybob from over yonder is going to be up to hunt next week.


----------



## djleye

Kris brantner said:


> i got an idea. ban all non residents for a total of one year. including fishing, duck and phesant hunting, and see how that goes. see how many diners struggle and motels and cabins dont fill up, yeah lets limit the days after that. kinda like the energy companys taking out ads on tv and radio telling them to use less of their product. dont make much sence does it. if you want pressure, HAHA! come hunt the public land here on the mississippi river. i can assure you you dont know what pressure is


Yea, your money is all that keeps ND alive!! Way top add some quality to the thread!!!! :eyeroll:


----------



## TK33

djleye said:


> Kris brantner said:
> 
> 
> 
> i got an idea. ban all non residents for a total of one year. including fishing, duck and phesant hunting, and see how that goes. see how many diners struggle and motels and cabins dont fill up, yeah lets limit the days after that. kinda like the energy companys taking out ads on tv and radio telling them to use less of their product. dont make much sence does it. if you want pressure, HAHA! come hunt the public land here on the mississippi river. i can assure you you dont know what pressure is
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, your money is all that keeps ND alive!! Way top add some quality to the thread!!!! :eyeroll:
Click to expand...

Might want to crunch your numbers again there Kris. It's about 17%. Not chump change but nowhere near a quarter.

IMO people are being short sighted, think down the road. Right now ND's energy market is booming, crp is down, corn production is up, and outfitting is on the rise. Not the best news for production and freelance hunting, especially in these wet years. BBJ has a good point, ND residents don't want our state to turn into the circus that other states are. Best to be ahead of the game.

I don't know if caps are the best option, but it is clear that in some areas a change needs to be made.



> The points on this topic make me shake my head in disbelief. Always one way with the Fargo and Bismarck folks when it comes to their 100% right as a citizen of the great state of North Dakota to legislate their access to their passion.


It seems to me as though some rural folks forget a few things. How many of these people have rural ties? how many of these guys are spending money in rural ND about 16 weekends a year hunting and maybe another 8-10 fishing? Kind of explains how residents account for over 80% of the spending, doesn't it. Not real hard to figure out since nearly half of the state's population lives in Bismarck, Fargo, and Grand Forks.


----------



## Blue Plate

How is outfitting on the rise?

What real evidence do you have that suggests that ND will turn into a circus? The number of non-resident licenses sold is level. It has been for several years, around 25K.


----------



## AdamFisk

Blue Plate said:


> How is outfitting on the rise?


Take it for what it's worth, but in my home area, each year more and more land is leased/locked up by an outfitter for watefowl. Land I could hunt last year, is now posted and given a dumb number so when the paying clients look at a map, all they have to do is find the quarter of land labeld "F7" and hunt away.

This is also taking away from the freelance NR's that hunt the area also. They are more than likely thinking the same thing I am.

Outfitting is on the rise, whether it being new operations showing up, or existing operations locking up more land.


----------



## AdamFisk

Blue Plate said:


> What real evidence do you have that suggests that ND will turn into a circus?


That is a good question. And I would like an honest, factual answer to it also. I hope it's more paranoia than anything, but I fear it's not.

I wonder if there are stats somewhere on number of acres leased year to year by outfitters, NR's, R's, ect. I would think that number would be increasing from year to year. Also, how many land owners are starting to charge 25-$50/gun to shoot fowl and pheasants???? I bet that number is increasing from year to year also. Lastly, what's the number of acres of public, PLOTS land we are losing from year to year? I bet that number is decreasing.

Taking the above factors into consideration from year to year, and adding in the fact that the number of NR's stays constant, well, you get the idea.


----------



## Scott LeDuc

Blue Plate said:


> What real evidence do you have that suggests that ND will turn into a circus? The number of non-resident licenses sold is level. It has been for several years, around 25K.


Blue Plate - there are more things to consider when talking about hunting pressure.

1) You are correct, NR hunter numbers have been static or decreasing over the last handful of years. However, the number of NR hunters have increase dramatically over the past 10-15 years. I didn't check the numbers but I think both of those points are indisputable
2) The method in which we hunt ducks here has changed dramatically as well. 10-20 years ago people (R and NR) mostly hunted ducks and geese over water. In a place like ND, that will spread out pressure because there is more accessible water. Lets face it, today we are all looking for the same thing, 2000 ducks/geese in a field. The number of fields holding birds on any given day is much less then the number of huntable potholes we had 10-20 years ago. The method in which we hunt ducks/geese by default has made more pressure in the state. I know, I know, there are a lot of people still hunting sloughs (including me) but lets face it, the majority of todays hunters are wanting to field hunt which is a far cry from 10-20 years ago.
3) Pressure also takes on a whole new meaning in wet years like this. Simply put, access will be more difficult in wet years because inevitably someone will rut up a farmers field and piss them off. We all pay the price for that in the long run with limited or less access. Don't underestimate the reach of this issue. Unfortunately, I could share a lot of conversations with farmers that ended with "nope, you can't hunt there because the last guy tore up my field." IMO this has played a big part in pressure this year.

I am sure there are other factors in play that I am missing. My point is pressure stems from more factors then just the number of NR hunter numbers. In short, I do think it's possible to see more pressure in years where NR hunter numbers have stayed the same.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Scott good post....

Here are other things that need to be looked at in regaurds to pressure....

Food sources..
1. More efficent farming than in the past. Less grain loss in the field with more modern equipment and what not.

2. This year..... Crops still standing. Waterfowl will go to the cut stuff or the wet beans.

Hunters afield..
1. Early goose season (about 3-5 years ago it was made a month long)
2. Youth season (implemented about 5 years ago)
3. Resident opener (again implemented about 3 or 5 years ago)
4. NR opener (again implemented about 3 or 5 years ago)

Waterfowl are seeing more and more decoy spreads for longer periods of time....ie august until december.

Water....
1. Less water less production (given)
2. Less water in spring waterfowl get concentrated....even if wet fall. They will typically stick to the area's that were wet during the spring and summer.
3. Wet spring...ducks are all over....dry fall get concentrated. (given again)

Here are some oddities that need to be considered..... 
1. Like scott said...more people hunting fields....so waterfowl is adapting. More and more birds feed at night during warm days (60 degree days). They will fly out once to feed instead of twice since they don't need the fat reserves to stay warm....like in colder temps.

2. Urbanization.....yes ND is having some. More waterfowl can stay in city limits to suck on grass shoots on athletic fields....during early part of season....then fly out to get grain when needing the high energy foods.

3. Then habitat loss.

4. Here is another oddity....R only hunting PLOTS or state land opening of pheasants. This does a couple things. R pheasant hunters walking around sloughs. This will make waterfowl wary and spooky and could make them leave an area even though not getting shot at. Also this is a place where NR...even waterfowlers can't hunt. So this will make them find new spots....which will be competing with R hunters on private land. Also they might find a spot where waterfowl were resting and not getting hunted. More spread out pressure.....R and NR waterfowlers and then pheasant hunters...ie both R and NR hunting different spots instead of more hunting the public land at the same time.

That is why when people want to blame NR.....it is a small part of the whole "pressure" concept. The Pressure concept has many area's and all need to be looked at.


----------



## swift

Scott while your post seems well thought out and genuine I have to disagree that the change in hunting from water to fields has ever occurred. This is supported by the parade of duck boats from the east the Friday before opener. Every Motel parking lot in Devils lake is full of duck boats. If anything I'd say just the opposite has occurred and there are many more water hunters than in the past.

ND is a small state, population wise, The young hunters that have had it easy have not had to deal with tough hunting like those in the 70's and late 80's. Now the NR's that have been members of DU, PF and all the other conservation orgs that have paid for the hebitat proliferation that in turn has led to the abundance of waterfowl and game animals are suddenly the problem. I would guarentee that more money is made for ND conservation efforts in MN than all of ND, then throw in the Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin chapters. Without their money for conservation in ND the habitat would dry up and go away.


----------



## djleye

Sloughy said:


> Do all you residents want to sacrifice anything in this debate? You probably don't want zones do you? Probably don't want your license fee to increase do you? Don't want to be limited to the number of days you can hunt do you? I haven't seen one thread on this topic from a resident that wants to be part of this solution you think is just at wildfire level.
> 
> The points on this topic make me shake my head in disbelief. Always one way with the Fargo and Bismarck folks when it comes to their 100% right as a citizen of the great state of North Dakota to legislate their access to their passion.
> 
> Along these thought processes North Dakotans shouldn't be allowed to sell shale oil out of state for more than 10 days a year, shouldn't be allowed to hit the beaches of Florida between October and May due to overcrowding, can only fish in Minnesota from 1 am to 2:45 am on odd days in months that begin with a J, can't buy vegetables from California... sounds pretty ridiculous doesn't it? I agree, but you should actually read what you provincial thinkers write and you just may start to see the light.


Why would we sacrafice????? We live here??!!!! :eyeroll:


----------



## indsport

Regardless of our respective positions on residents versus non residents, it will not be the same in the near future. CRP which raises some of the deer, most of the pheasants and most of the duck nests in this state will be mostly gone by 2012. All the arguments in the world about pressure don't amount to a hill of beans (pun intended). When there are fewer and fewer places with habitat, and the game populations decline back to what it was in the mid 80's, both residents and non residents will be hunting fewer and fewer locations chasing less and less game. As to the economic impact on local towns by hunters, that too will inevitably decline when fewer and fewer hunters are coming to town. It is already happening in my area and the small towns didn't see near the business with the sharp decline in pheasants and grouse combined with the posting and loss of CRP.

See http://www.ducks.org/news/2035/CRPlosse ... riePo.html if you want to see how grim it will be in the next few years.


----------



## Scott LeDuc

Chuck Smith said:


> That is why when people want to blame NR.....it is a small part of the whole "pressure" concept. The Pressure concept has many area's and all need to be looked at.


Chuck,

Out of all of the pressure "variables" that we have listed, how many can we actually change?

weather - no
hunting methods - no, atleast in my opinion (people will hunt how they choose).
resident hunter numbers - no, the state will not restrict this IMO
crop impact - no, see weather above
conservation - YES, but a whole different topic IMO
non resident hunters - YES, the state can restrict this.

I don't think it's so much that NR's get blamed for pressure, it's that residents realize this is one of the few variables they can change which will in theory better the hunting in ND.

I'm leaving conservation out of this discussion for simplicity but I agree that is the silver bullet.


----------



## Blue Plate

Non resident pressure increased dramatically from 1990 - 2000 then peaked around 2001 and now has leveled off or decreased. I would say that the "natural" number is around 24K. It has not increase in recent years, maybe due to the drough in a large part of the state. I would be curious to know how many NR licenses were sold this year with perfect conditions?

CRP loss is a major issue when it comes to duck production.

I would say more field hunting would spread out the hunting pressure even further.


----------



## barebackjack

Blue Plate said:


> I would say more field hunting would spread out the hunting pressure even further.


In a normal year, yes. This year, with the majority of the crop standing through most of the waterfowl season, no.



Scott LeDuc said:


> I don't think it's so much that NR's get blamed for pressure, it's that residents realize this is one of the few variables they can change which will in theory better the hunting in ND.


 :beer:


----------



## Chuck Smith

> Out of all of the pressure "variables" that we have listed, how many can we actually change?


Well a handful....ie season dates/lengths (early goose mainly), habitat loss (but again another conversation), where people are allowed to hunt (permit areas, public land access, etc) and of course # of NR.

But what of these does not effect the R hunter...only one. So that is why most people point to the dreaded word "cap".

Lets look at the past years..... NR days afield got shortened (14 days), NR have a separate opener, NR can't hunt public land for a week (ND state land and PLOTS).....all affect the NR...which is fine by me. The only constant is R hunters.

But yet people have stated hunting keeps getting worse year after year. So more restrictions on the NR population will that make it better? Who knows??

But things I do know that has happened in this time frame that NR have been restricted is rapid loss of Habitat, fields getting tiled, this year wet fall (standing crops late into the season), drought in some parts of the state, etc. So like I have stated to point fingers at NR or a cap as the answer....when they have been getting restricted along with other elements in play won't help. IMO.



> I don't think it's so much that NR's get blamed for pressure, it's that residents realize this is one of the few variables they can change which will in theory better the hunting in ND.


This again i totally believe is true.....but again like you stated "in theory". But with habitat loss it will be a moot point. That is what I am trying to drive home and again a different conversation.


----------



## barebackjack

Chuck Smith said:


> This again i totally believe is true.....but again like you stated "in theory". But with habitat loss it will be a moot point. That is what I am trying to drive home and again a different conversation.


First off, every idea to this issue is "in theory", that is, until it is tried out. It may work, it may not. We'll never know unless it is implemented for a year or two. (Kind of like hunters choice bag limits).

I see habitat loss and hunter numbers (as they relate to overall pressure) as being directly related.

More habitat can support more wildlife, and thus, more hunters. More habitat is spread out, thus hunters are spread out. (Like high water years)

Less habitat supports less wildlife, and concentrates what wildlife there is, as well as what hunters there are, creating more perceived pressure. (Like low water years).

If we loose habitat, and keep hunter numbers where they are with zero changes, pressure WILL increase. So no, with habitat loss it is not a moot point, it becomes an even bigger point.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> If we loose habitat, and keep hunter numbers where they are with zero changes, pressure WILL increase. So no, with habitat loss it is not a moot point, it becomes an even bigger point.


 :beer:

If more habitat is loss and then a cap in place....it does nothing to lessen pressure. Because less land/resource and a few less hunters will mean same or more pressure. That is what I meant by moot point.

Now what should be more of a focus.....less NR hunters or habitat loss? Bareback you are in agreement with me.....HABITAT. But in order to do something about that it will effect R's.


----------



## Savage260

> Scott while your post seems well thought out and genuine I have to disagree that the change in hunting from water to fields has ever occurred. This is supported by the parade of duck boats from the east the Friday before opener. Every Motel parking lot in Devils lake is full of duck boats.


Sorry, but I live in DL, and spend a whole lot of time on the roads around here. I am guessing for every group of vehicles with a duck boat I see, there are 3-4 groups of vehicles pulling deek trailers and 4-wheelers with no boats. I have been seeing more and more field hunting in the 6 years I have been here, and I don't hunt waterfowl, so if I can see it, I am sure the hunters in the area see it.


----------



## Maverick

Chuck Smith said:


> If we loose habitat, and keep hunter numbers where they are with zero changes, pressure WILL increase. So no, with habitat loss it is not a moot point, it becomes an even bigger point.
> 
> 
> 
> :beer:
> 
> If more habitat is loss and then a cap in place....it does nothing to lessen pressure. Because less land/resource and a few less hunters will mean same or more pressure. That is what I meant by moot point.
> 
> Now what should be more of a focus.....less NR hunters or habitat loss? Bareback you are in agreement with me.....HABITAT. But in order to do something about that it will effect R's.
Click to expand...

Your completley missing what he is saying, and trying to spin things again!
:eyeroll:


----------



## Chuck Smith

No not spinning. He stated if Hunter numbers stay the same and with habitat loss pressure will increase. So in return less hunters afield (ie NR cap) and less habitat it would mean same amount of pressure or increased pressure depending on the amount of habitat loss....correct?

Or if habitat stayed the same and less hunters afield would mean decrease in pressure.....but others have stated more habitat is lost every year. So habitat staying the same is not happening.


----------



## Maverick

Chuck,
I do see what you are saying by loss of habitat means loss of opportunity (for all), and will contribute to centralizing pressure adding more to an area, but he is saying that we cannot keep the same amount of NR hunters with an already loss of habitat! Your theory about being able to keep the same amount of NR hunters even though we have *lost* habitat makes no sense and is your way of spinning things! 
WE ARE LOSSING HABITAT BUT KEEPING THE SAME NUMBER OF HUNTERS=MORE PRESSURE FOR ALL! How can you not see that? Yes we need habitat, but the fact is we are losing land and cannot keep the same numbers coming! Why is that so hard for you to understand!

O.k â€¦..Just so you know I do understand what you are saying. The problem is loss of habitatâ€¦(this I get from your point) â€¦â€¦.not the #â€™s of NR hunters, but with the loss of habitat that has already happened and will continue too, why do you think the existing habitat can support the same amount of pressure from the total number of hunters. With loss of habitat shouldnâ€™t the total number of hunters shrink as well to keep pressure the same? Otherwise it is only destined for more pressure! Itâ€™s only common sense!


----------



## Chuck Smith

> O.k â€¦..Just so you know I do understand what you are saying. The problem is loss of habitatâ€¦(this I get from your point) â€¦â€¦.not the #â€™s of NR hunters, but with the loss of habitat that has already happened and will continue too, why do you think the existing habitat can support the same amount of pressure from the total number of hunters. With loss of habitat shouldnâ€™t the total number of hunters shrink as well to keep pressure the same? Otherwise it is only destined for more pressure! Itâ€™s only common sense!


I don't think it can stay the same.....but like i have stated ever since I have been a member on this site.....a cap or decreasing hunter numbers is like putting a band aid on a bullet wound. If people would focus on maintaining habitat or increasing habitat it would decrease the pressure aspect. But no....everyone is focusing on number numbers. People should be focusing on acres lost. Because you could decrease the number of NR to zero but if habitat keeps getting lost you will still see pressure.

Again.....look at MN....it was not pressure that made the hunting poor in area's.....it was loss of habitat. Finally they did something about it....dedicated funding bill....only time will tell if it will work.

Look at the last month on this site.....if every R (and yes it has to be R) that chimmed in on one of these NR vs R threads would have emailed a state rep about habitat. It would have been more productive.

Think about the revenue that the state will be getting off of the oil in the state.....use a small portion of that $$$ towards habitat. It will go a long way. Try a dedicated funding issue like MN (not saying it is great or anything but an idea). What I am trying to get through to some is that habitat is more important than # of hunters in the field.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Let me summarize what I have been trying to say....

A NR cap is a short term fix....could be 1 year or 5 years. But with rapid loss of habitat each year it will keep increasing pressure.

I hate to sound like a DU commercial but habitat, habitat, habitat is where the fight needs to take place. Because lets say a cap goes in and then three years pressure is back to where it was before the cap.....you lost three years of habitat and it will take 10 years to get it back if you can get it back.


----------



## Maverick

> I don't think it can stay the same.....but like i have stated ever since I have been a member on this site.....a cap or decreasing hunter numbers is like putting a band aid on a bullet wound.


That's great that it is your opinion! I am just wondering what your definition of the "Bullet Wound" is? What would we be putting a band aid over? If you think the bullet wound is JUST loss of habitat, you are only seeing half the problem of pressure!



> If people would focus on maintaining habitat or increasing habitat it would decrease the pressure aspect


True....but it's not what is happening! Habitat loss is what is happening!



> People should be focusing on acres lost


I agree but once we see what is lost it is already to late!



> Because you could decrease the number of NR to zero but if habitat keeps getting lost you will still see pressure.


I agree but not as much pressure as we would with 24,000 others fighting for the same spots!



> Again.....look at MN....it was not pressure that made the hunting poor in area's.....it was loss of habitat.


Actually it was both! Not just loss of habiat! Once people started stepping on others toes they started cominghere! Now that is happening here! You could learn alot more than you are while referencing your own state



> Finally they did something about it....dedicated funding bill....only time will tell if it will work


Well once they start allocating there money twords the outdoors they will be doing something. The state of MN has been known for using that money for other things! That's a different topic though!



> Look at the last month on this site.....if every R (and yes it has to be R) that chimmed in on one of these NR vs R threads would have emailed a state rep about habitat. It would have been more productive.


That I agree with 100%!!!! That's a conversation I have had with a few friends more than once,and something you could be fighting for as well! Matt Jones said it right! Nothing is really going to change till NR start to helping the cause! So that's where your emails could help gain more habitat as well, but alas you are fighting for your days to hunt instead of the areas to hunt!

The facts are that we are lossing land and have LOST land already! We are lossing it at an alarming rate. Less habitat (WHICH HAS ALREADY HAPPENED) cannot support the amount of pressure with out compramising something! Do you know what that something is?


----------



## Chuck Smith

> Quote:
> I don't think it can stay the same.....but like i have stated ever since I have been a member on this site.....a cap or decreasing hunter numbers is like putting a band aid on a bullet wound.
> 
> That's great that it is your opinion! I am just wondering what your definition of the "Bullet Wound" is? What would we be putting a band aid over?
> 
> Quote:
> If people would focus on maintaining habitat or increasing habitat it would decrease the pressure aspect
> 
> True....but it's not what is happening! Habitat loss is what is happening!
> 
> Quote:
> People should be focusing on acres lost
> 
> I agree but once we see what is lost it is already to late!
> 
> Quote:
> Because you could decrease the number of NR to zero but if habitat keeps getting lost you will still see pressure.
> 
> I agree but not as much pressure as we would with 24,000 others fighting for the same spots!
> 
> Quote:
> Again.....look at MN....it was not pressure that made the hunting poor in area's.....it was loss of habitat.
> 
> Actually it was both! Not just loss of habiat! Once people started stepping on others toes they started cominghere! Now that is happening here! You could learn alot more than you are while referencing your own state
> 
> Quote:
> Finally they did something about it....dedicated funding bill....only time will tell if it will work
> 
> Well once they start allocating there money twords the outdoors they will be doing something. The state of MN has been known for using that money for other things! That's a different topic though!
> 
> Quote:
> Look at the last month on this site.....if every R (and yes it has to be R) that chimmed in on one of these NR vs R threads would have emailed a state rep about habitat. It would have been more productive.
> 
> That I agree with 100%!!!! That's a conversation I have had with a few friends more than once!
> 
> The facts are that we are lossing land and have LOST land already! We are lossing it at an alarming rate. Less habitat (WHICH HAS ALREADY HAPPENED) cannot support the amount of pressure with out compramising something! Do you know what that something is?


1. Bullet wound is loss of habitat....but people are focusing on NR's. Only R can do things about Habitat....NR can't.

2. You agree loss of habitat is happening.....so where should the focus be.....hunter numbers of the loss of habitat? Because you can keep decreasing hunter numbers but that will do nothing for habitat.

3. If it is lost it is not already too late....you can stop or try to regain what is lost.

4. No I agree that with loss of habitat hunters number can't be the same. But if you keep decreasing numbers and do nothing towards habitat....you are in the same boat.

5. No the same people hunting or traveling to hunt in ND are still hunting in MN....but take a week or two in ND. Sorry but that is fact. R waterfowl hunter numbers have not dropped in MN.

6. That is why I stated we will have to wait and see on the dedicated funding bill.

7. By focusing on NR numbers what you are comprimising is more and more habitat loss. Because nothing is being done to stop it. Look at all the bills this past leg session.....most had to do with NR....Not much about habitat. I understand that the NR comes second to the R hunter.

NR's emails to ND state reps will do nothing. They do nothing for the fight to keep licenses or habitat. That is all up to the R of the state. Now emails to DU, Delta, PF, other conservation orgs will do good for the fight for habitat. Or emails to US senators about farm bills and what not will do good.


----------



## Maverick

> 1. Bullet wound is loss of habitat....but people are focusing on NR's. Only R can do things about Habitat....NR can't.


NR can do alot more than you think and are giving credit for! We have learned that in the last session!



> 2. You agree loss of habitat is happening.....so where should the focus be.....hunter numbers of the loss of habitat? Because you can keep decreasing hunter numbers but that will do nothing for habitat.


While habitat is decreasing why shouldn't total #'s of hunters. It makes NO SENSE to keep the pressure the same whe habitat is lost! Period!



> 3. If it is lost it is not already too late....you can stop or try to regain what is lost.


Look in the mirror! Why are you not fighting for habitat? Why are you fighting for your hunting days instead of habitat?



> 4. No I agree that with loss of habitat hunters number can't be the same. But if you keep decreasing numbers and do nothing towards habitat....you are in the same boat.


 Only if thing play out like you want them to! It's not reality though!



> 5. No the same people hunting or traveling to hunt in ND are still hunting in MN....but take a week or two in ND. Sorry but that is fact. R waterfowl hunter numbers have not dropped in MN


But have better opportunity here than in your own state! They would spen more timehere if they could!



> 6. That is why I stated we will have to wait and see on the dedicated funding bill.


Yep....wait and see!



> 7. By focusing on NR numbers what you are comprimising is more and more habitat loss. Because nothing is being done to stop it. Look at all the bills this past leg session.....most had to do with NR....Not much about habitat. I understand that the NR comes second to the R hunter.


No you are compramising our hunting in our state! You are compramising your hunting in our state!

You are missing what Scott L. has to say as well! Our state has been losing habitat because of Ag. reasons! That won't stop til the farmers want to re-enroll in CRP! Plain and Simple!

So how do you propose we go about gaining more habitat when the farmers farm the land?


----------



## Chuck Smith

> So how do you propose we go about gaining more habitat when the farmers farm the land?


FARM BILL..... last farm bill purposed by Bush.....did anybody write the elected officials....I did.



> 3. If it is lost it is not already too late....you can stop or try to regain what is lost.
> Look in the mirror! Why are you not fighting for habitat? Why are you fighting for your hunting days instead of habitat?


I am in my home state. Just like R of ND should be doing in their own instead of concentrating on NR caps and NR legislation.



> 4. No I agree that with loss of habitat hunters number can't be the same. But if you keep decreasing numbers and do nothing towards habitat....you are in the same boat.
> Only if thing play out like you want them to! It's not reality though!


I don't want it to play out the way I envision it. But you keep saying that habitat is getting lost at an alarming rate..... So what I am saying will happen. A Cap on NR hunters and still pressure.

Like I have stated before..... I have not hunted waterfowl in ND for 5 years. I am looking at this from the outside in. I see both sides....but I only see one fix.....more habitat. The rest is short term fixes and that is it.


----------



## Dunk221999

Hunter numbers are down 70% in Canada. Perhaps some of you should apply for citizenship!

http://www.wildlifeprofessional-digital ... mer/?pg=61


----------



## TK33

Blueplate- 
Drive around ND or just read this site, more land is being locked up for outfitting/pay hunting every year. I don't know if anyone tracks the acreage that has been locked up. There sure seems to be more and more 3rd party guide-leasing outfits now than there were just two years ago. These are the kinds of things that residents have a much better grasp of, living here year round, for years on end.

As far as factual evidence goes take a look at last year's legislative session in ND. Remember waterfowl was added in to the bill at the end. Also remember the NR license fee was going to increase too. So actually NR's can thank resident hunters for defeating this legislation, the bill was going to pass if ND residents had not gotten ahold of their reps. I think it was HB1216. HB 1216 was watered down compared to what some would like to do here in ND.

As far as the farm bill goes, good luck. Unless a re-incarnated Teddy Roosevelt appears in power soon habitat is going to play second fiddle to renewable energy. Any progress would have to be done in state and using mostly state funds. In other words increased license fees, personally I would gladly pay and extra 10 or 20 bucks a year for my license if it helps ensure my kids have good hunting here.


----------



## swift

Laite, I'm from DL too and over the last 20 years water hunting has gotten much more popular. Many of the fields that were durum, wheat and barley 20 years ago are corn and soybeans now. You must agree that the corn fields are rarely if ever harvested during the opener of waterfowl. And in recent years are not harvested until well after freeze up. This has concentrated the field hunters into the few small grain fields left and have many hunting the water.

The reason I bring this up is to show that there are many unfounded arguements for limiting hunters. Laite when is the DL ducks unlimited banquet this year? How about PF banquet? Many DU and PF habitat projects are going on around DL. Look around Kenner marsh and the south end of Lake Alice their project areas are nearly the only public access off the refuges. And all the land around them are leased by outfitters. RESIDENT outfitters no less.


----------



## Savage260

Swift, I am not saying people are not hunting water, we all know we have enough of it around!!! I am saying I have seen more and more people hunting fields that are close to water, but not "on the water". I have seen more rigs parked in fields all over our area this year than I have in probably the last 2-3 years combined. As I said I am not a bird hunter so I don't know about the banquets.


----------



## barebackjack

swift said:


> And all the land around them are leased by outfitters. RESIDENT outfitters no less.


Ill think youll find, that on this site at least, the RESIDENT outfitters rate pretty low as well and are largely viewed as a threat to the ND style of hunting as well.


----------



## Drakekiller

C. GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT GUIDANCE POLICIES
It is the responsibility of the North Dakota Game and Fish Department to be the principal
governmental proponent for fish and wildlife populations and their habitat. The
Department must aggressively conserve and enhance these resources and protect them
from irreversible harm to ensure their existence in perpetuity for the citizens of the state.
It is upon that premise that the following management policies are formulated:
Resource Use
1. The Department will support, promote and actively defend biologically sound
sport fishing, hunting and trapping as traditional and legitimate uses of North
Dakota's fish and wildlife resources.
2. Fish and wildlife management decisions will reflect the need to provide a wide
variety of recreational opportunities in keeping within the Department's
mission.
3. The Department will emphasize individual recreational opportunities to
promote the highest possible enjoyment from outdoor recreation.
4. Regulations governing the use of fish and wildlife resources will be designed
for ease of understanding and will include only those restrictions necessary to
meet desired management objectives.
5. The fish and wildlife resources of North Dakota belong to the residents of the
state and, while national interests will be considered (especially as they pertain
to our abundant migratory bird resources), these resources will be managed for
the recreational and other legitimate benefits that can be derived primarily by
the residents of North Dakota.
Education
6. The Department will promote and conduct training and educational programs
that emphasize outdoor skills, ethical outdoor behavior, safe hunting and
boating practices, the needs of fish and wildlife, and the wise use and
appreciation of the state's fish and wildlife resources.
Promotion and Marketing of Outdoor Opportunities
7. In order to ensure continued familiarity with and participation in acceptable
use of renewable fish and wildlife resources, the Department will market its
products to residents using contemporary advertising methods.
8. Working with appropriate governmental agencies, and with input from resident
sportsmen and women, the Department will identify acceptable limits of
nonresident use of North Dakota fish and wildlife resources and coordinate
with state and local promotional groups to keep marketing to nonresidents at
appropriate levels and directed at appropriate programs.
9. The Department recognizes the value of rural economic development through
promotion of the state's natural resources that provides exposure to and
understanding of resource management requirements, as long as it is consistent
with sustained use and does not negatively impact resident public use
opportunities.


----------



## AdamFisk

I wonder if "The Department" ever reads Nodak Outdoors......

I particularly liked reading #5.


----------



## Maverick

> FARM BILL..... last farm bill purposed by Bush.....did anybody write the elected officials....I did


Farm Bill...."Come on Man"....Any smart farmer is going to turn his land in to AG instead of CRP or any program like that! A lot of farmers were a bit angry with the CRP program as it did take farmable land out of production. It is to their benefit to farm the land instead of sitting on it! Plus it is still up to the farmer to enroll in it! You and I have no control over actual habitat!

I went to Wahpeton last night and had dinner with my grandparents who have farmed that area since the 40's. I talked to a cousin who is around my age (a very avid hunter as well) and has been farming the land ever since he could ride in a machine (he will take over after all are gone)! I asked him the very answer you proposed. The actual question was do you think if they came out with a farm bill to help preserve some habitat for wildlife would you enroll some land. His answer was, why would I want to do that! Why would I want to take my land out of production to make half of what I can if I farm it? 
As it may be a good idea you need to think like a farmer to understand why they did enroll in programs like CRP 10 years ago! Just because a farm bill could potentially pay out, it's all the other hassles that go along with the programs that tend to turn them off from the programs! Plus certain eligibility requirements still apply. Farmers just cannot freely enroll in it! So your easy answer of a farm bill just isn't that easy!



> A Cap on NR hunters and still pressure.


With a cap it is limited to how much pressure can be put on the available resource. Keeping the flood gates open will keep an uncontrolled amount of pressure here. Loss of habitat with the same amount of hunters coming in only adds pressure to the existing land that is available! Not rocket science and I just donâ€™t know why you canâ€™t grasp that concept!



> I see both sides....but I only see one fix.....more habitat. The rest is short term fixes and that is it.


And you don't see what effects will happen if we don't gain habitat and keep an uncontrolled amount of pressure! If we gain habitat your theory would work, but alas we are not! So your theory about putting a cap while losing habitat only increases pressure makes absolutely no sense! It controls pressure for the existing land available! The short term fix is actually the amount of pressure applied to a loss of habitat! When habitat #'s comes back (which has been proven to happen) then up the numbers of NR hunters! Hunter Pressure concept! Pretty easy to figure out really!


----------



## Drakekiller

#9 also.
No one in ND want no NRs hunters,just an acceptable number that does not impact the quility of hunting. I do alot of hunting with friends from out of state. Alot of you do not understand that it is not a right to hunt here, it is a privilege.Like it or not, wildlife in ND belong to the people of ND period. We will not tell you what to do with your states regs.
Chuck
I have to agree with Mav,your habitat issue is not the fix. DU,Delta,and PFE are a help but they can not do enough here in ND to make a big impact with habitat. I will check the total of acres they have in ND. I am sure it is a small number of acres in the big picture.


----------



## prairie hunter

Oh back to this again. Seems like yesterday when in reality it was 8 years ago the whole hunter pressure concept issues were debated on this site.

No need for zones or caps. Lodging will actually control total amount of hunters accessing ND in each region. Big city ND hunters if you book rooms and stay in the small towns each fall you will displace NRs.

Tags would be one way to reduce hunter pressure and so would a 1PM closure on ducks. Tags would reduce the overall pressure NRs place on the resource. Small towns should not complain, by balancing out use of tags NRs should be spending a little more time in town.

To those residents that struggled this fall:
Hint venture beyond 20 - 30 miles from the larger towns unless you have scouted out a good field. Resident pressure is huge here too and always has been.

Hint scout new areas. With all the rain across ND, the ducks and geese were using some non-traditional areas in ND.

*Weather played a bigger role in moving ducks through ND and determining where they were living than hunting pressure.* If you were able to adapt, this fall was excellent hunting. If you played the this is how we always do it, this is where we always go plan .. you may have had a tough fall.

Residents - sorry, but if you could not kill ducks and geese this year - quit because you lack the skill set to hunt them. We tried a new area for just 2.5 days this fall and had absolutely fantastic hunting. Went in blind came home happy.


----------



## Nick Roehl

prairie hunter said:


> Oh back to this again. Seems like yesterday when in reality it was 8 years ago the whole hunter pressure concept issues were debated on this site.
> 
> No need for zones or caps. Lodging will actually control total amount of hunters accessing ND in each region. Big city ND hunters if you book rooms and stay in the small towns each fall you will displace NRs.
> 
> Tags would be one way to reduce hunter pressure and so would a 1PM closure on ducks. Tags would reduce the overall pressure NRs place on the resource. Small towns should not complain, by balancing out use of tags NRs should be spending a little more time in town.
> 
> To those residents that struggled this fall:
> Hint venture beyond 20 - 30 miles from the larger towns unless you have scouted out a good field. Resident pressure is huge here too and always has been.
> 
> Hint scout new areas. With all the rain across ND, the ducks and geese were using some non-traditional areas in ND.
> 
> *Weather played a bigger role in moving ducks through ND and determining where they were living than hunting pressure.* If you were able to adapt, this fall was excellent hunting. If you played the this is how we always do it, this is where we always go plan .. you may have had a tough fall.
> 
> Residents - sorry, but if you could not kill ducks and geese this year - quit because you lack the skill set to hunt them. We tried a new area for just 2.5 days this fall and had absolutely fantastic hunting. Went in blind came home happy.


Wow 2.5 days of great hunting for you!! You should guide with those kind of results!! uke:

Next CRP was a good thing, do I think the government should of kept up closer with cash rent, yes. But farmers are just getting greedy now and taking it all down. But they are realizing that the crappy land they enrolled in CRP was for a reason. You might get one good crop off of it, then it's back to crap.

NR cap needs to happen in some shape or form. I was out this friday and saturday pheasant hunting and helping my uncle with corn a bit. There were NR's still all over the place. 80% of the birds are still in the corn, and most of the corn in this area and west is still up.

The sad fact is that in the end none of this is going to happen because hunting in ND is a $$$ maker. And the state will run it into the ground until there is no more $ to be made.


----------



## tikkat3

I think we should spike the price, ND residents pay big bucks to go shoot an elk in the mountains why not make a ND waterfowl week cost the equivalent, $700 to shoot an elk $700 a week for waterfowl here $100 a day :lol:


----------



## Drakekiller

I for one think our licenses fees are fair now. I do not want it to price the average guy out. The ones with the big money is not what we need.


----------



## templey_41

I think I know why there hasn't been a cap on the # of NR's. Its green people seem to need it in order to live. Someday I am going to wipe my ars with it right before I die just to say I did and it rhymes with honey. chuching chuching chuching its $$$$$$$.

Okay so you limit the # of NR's lets see what that will do to the amount of cash flow coming into ND. Say you do bring in 25,000 NRs to the state every year with there trailer pulling big rigs and ridiculus boats. But, what would you say the average NR spends in ND each year? 100 200 300 400 i'd say close to $500 dollars and I am thinking this is on the low end of my distribution curve i'm thinking its closer to $1000. I'm saying 500 cuz this is the average of our group of 8 hunters. So take the $500 and multiply it by 25000 and I come up with $12,500,000. wait what? yeah 12.5 MILLION with an M. So now you put a cap on the NRs and say cut that in half how do you make up for that revenue. I've got an idea tax the residents more.  no you dont like that idea right of course not. See you have a resource and a inflow of cash that the state is counting on and they obviously don't care about their own people as many of you residents have stated.

I think the GNF of ND is backwards of course I think the DNR of MN is backwards and corrupt as well. We've (MN rez) been telling them for years we need more habitat more habitat more habitat. And what have we gotten in return. The crappiest duck hunting season on record here in MN thats just my opinion and many have the same feeling. So what is it that the DNR is doing then. .....they are just thinking about $$. why spend it on something that no one is doing anymore. The # of hunters has dropped significantly. Many say because of the loss of habitat, which may be partly true, but I feel its due to the # of hunters who are getting old can't move around as well and frankly have died and are hunting ducks in ND heaven! 

So in conclusion, you really shouldn't worry about the NR cap because 50% of the guys who are NR hunters will be dead in 10-15yrs or too old to hunt. and does anyone see them being replaced? i for one don't, mostly because of our instant gratification society and how we can just got to wal mart and get it. Plus its "work" to get up at 530 and setup decoys and row the boat out into a slough and get cold and wet for a few pounds of meat when I could've stayed in bed and woke up at 8 and gone to walmart and got my ho ho's and a cup of coffee and pick up a few pounds of burger for supper.


----------



## Scott LeDuc

templey_41 said:


> I think I know why there hasn't been a cap on the # of NR's. Its green people seem to need it in order to live. Someday I am going to wipe my ars with it right before I die just to say I did and it rhymes with honey. chuching chuching chuching its $$$$$$$.
> 
> Okay so you limit the # of NR's lets see what that will do to the amount of cash flow coming into ND. Say you do bring in 25,000 NRs to the state every year with there trailer pulling big rigs and ridiculus boats. But, what would you say the average NR spends in ND each year? 100 200 300 400 i'd say close to $500 dollars and I am thinking this is on the low end of my distribution curve i'm thinking its closer to $1000. I'm saying 500 cuz this is the average of our group of 8 hunters. So take the $500 and multiply it by 25000 and I come up with $12,500,000. wait what? yeah 12.5 MILLION with an M. So now you put a cap on the NRs and say cut that in half how do you make up for that revenue. I've got an idea tax the residents more.  no you dont like that idea right of course not. See you have a resource and a inflow of cash that the state is counting on and they obviously don't care about their own people as many of you residents have stated.
> 
> I think the GNF of ND is backwards of course I think the DNR of MN is backwards and corrupt as well. We've (MN rez) been telling them for years we need more habitat more habitat more habitat. And what have we gotten in return. The crappiest duck hunting season on record here in MN thats just my opinion and many have the same feeling. So what is it that the DNR is doing then. .....they are just thinking about $$. why spend it on something that no one is doing anymore. The # of hunters has dropped significantly. Many say because of the loss of habitat, which may be partly true, but I feel its due to the # of hunters who are getting old can't move around as well and frankly have died and are hunting ducks in ND heaven!
> 
> So in conclusion, you really shouldn't worry about the NR cap because 50% of the guys who are NR hunters will be dead in 10-15yrs or too old to hunt. and does anyone see them being replaced? i for one don't, mostly because of our instant gratification society and how we can just got to wal mart and get it. Plus its "work" to get up at 530 and setup decoys and row the boat out into a slough and get cold and wet for a few pounds of meat when I could've stayed in bed and woke up at 8 and gone to walmart and got my ho ho's and a cup of coffee and pick up a few pounds of burger for supper.


Drinking on a Sunday again???? oke: oke:


----------



## TK33

> So in conclusion, you really shouldn't worry about the NR cap because 50% of the guys who are NR hunters will be dead in 10-15yrs


 :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin:

Funny no one has mentioned that yet.


----------



## KEN W

Why is our GNF backwards????


----------



## templey_41

KEN W said:


> Why is our GNF backwards????


Let me draw you a map.....sorry BBJ i just had to say that!

Because they care about the almighty $$$ instead of you the hunter like #5 of the declaration of GNF of ND stated. It's the same reason MN doesn't put a cap on out of state fishermen and women. Because we have the lakes and people want to be on them fishing boating etc etc skinny dipping etc etc it's a huge RESOURCE for income and they are going to exploit it. PERIOD

Hence they are BACKWARDS>


----------



## KEN W

templey_41 said:


> KEN W said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is our GNF backwards????
> 
> 
> 
> Let me draw you a map.....sorry BBJ i just had to say that!
> 
> Because they care about the almighty $$$ instead of you the hunter like #5 of the declaration of GNF of ND stated. It's the same reason MN doesn't put a cap on out of state fishermen and women. Because we have the lakes and people want to be on them fishing boating etc etc skinny dipping etc etc it's a huge RESOURCE for income and they are going to exploit it. PERIOD
> 
> Hence they are BACKWARDS>
Click to expand...

I don't need a map.I have lived and or hunted here for 47 years.Our GNF does a great job.They are always looking for ways to increase our outdoor opportunities. :thumb:


----------



## cgreeny

Re: NR cap options
by templey_41 » Sun Dec 13, 2009 9:36 pm

[/quote]I think I know why there hasn't been a cap on the # of NR's. Its green people seem to need it in order to live. Someday I am going to wipe my ars with it right before I die just to say I did and it rhymes with honey. chuching chuching chuching its $$$$$$$.

Okay so you limit the # of NR's lets see what that will do to the amount of cash flow coming into ND. Say you do bring in 25,000 NRs to the state every year with there trailer pulling big rigs and ridiculus boats. But, what would you say the average NR spends in ND each year? 100 200 300 400 i'd say close to $500 dollars and I am thinking this is on the low end of my distribution curve i'm thinking its closer to $1000. I'm saying 500 cuz this is the average of our group of 8 hunters. So take the $500 and multiply it by 25000 and I come up with $12,500,000. wait what? yeah 12.5 MILLION with an M. So now you put a cap on the NRs and say cut that in half how do you make up for that revenue. I've got an idea tax the residents more. no you dont like that idea right of course not. See you have a resource and a inflow of cash that the state is counting on and they obviously don't care about their own people as many of you residents have stated.

I think the GNF of ND is backwards of course I think the DNR of MN is backwards and corrupt as well. We've (MN rez) been telling them for years we need more habitat more habitat more habitat. And what have we gotten in return. The crappiest duck hunting season on record here in MN thats just my opinion and many have the same feeling. So what is it that the DNR is doing then. .....they are just thinking about $$. why spend it on something that no one is doing anymore. The # of hunters has dropped significantly. Many say because of the loss of habitat, which may be partly true, but I feel its due to the # of hunters who are getting old can't move around as well and frankly have died and are hunting ducks in ND heaven! [/quote]

While I agree, on the State seeing $$$$ signs, you also have to remember ND is a leader in energy resources, hell I think the state made what $90 million on their last State Land Auction for Oil and Gas Leases. So I would say ND has many avenues that it could look at, to make up what would be lost if the NR numbers were cut. Besides that I havent heard too much about ND being in any sort of hurt bag for $$$$. I also agree with most when we say Habitat is also playing a giant key on this entire debate. But with less Habitat how can numbers stay the same?????


----------



## Bug Guy

Whew!!!! I just finished reading this entire thread and noticed one glaring omission from this discussion. THE LANDOWNERS OPINION!!! It is the landowners that will decide how much hunting pressure is enough. Not the legislature, not the NR hunters, and not the R hunters. The legislature doesn't need to put a cap on NR hunters because regardless of whether a hunter is R or NR, the landowner decides when enough birds, deer, rabbits, etc. have been taken off their land and then they will shut it down. It's that simple. How do I know? It's what I do. To me it isn't about the color of the liscense plate, it's about the wildlife and what is good for them. Listening to this thread is like listening to two privates fighting over who has seniority. It's actually entertaining to watch/read.


----------



## Dick Monson

Bug Guy, as a landowner and hunter let me toss in .02 worth. Hunting pressure equates to posting land. More hunters = more posting. Most worthwhile habitat is posted in ND. Pheasants, ducks, deer, it's posted. So the land owners are saying pressure is too high. Or they would not go to the time, effort, and expense of posting. Pretty simple.

Go to a part of the state with low hunter numbers and you find less posting. It is hand in hand.

Commercializing wildlife increases hunter numbers and decreases access. When these situations are brought to the legislature it is like the commercializers steal both your shoes. Then they offer to give one back for a concession from ND sportsmen. And we are supposed to be grateful?

I don't think so.


----------



## barebackjack

Bug Guy said:


> Whew!!!! I just finished reading this entire thread and noticed one glaring omission from this discussion. THE LANDOWNERS OPINION!!! It is the landowners that will decide how much hunting pressure is enough. Not the legislature, not the NR hunters, and not the R hunters. The legislature doesn't need to put a cap on NR hunters because regardless of whether a hunter is R or NR, the landowner decides when enough birds, deer, rabbits, etc. have been taken off their land and then they will shut it down. It's that simple. How do I know? It's what I do. To me it isn't about the color of the liscense plate, it's about the wildlife and what is good for them. Listening to this thread is like listening to two privates fighting over who has seniority. It's actually entertaining to watch/read.


 :rollin: :rollin: :rollin:

Im glad that is how you manage your land. It just makes sense. Kudos for that.

But landowners managing the wildlife on their land in this way are the MINORITY in this state.


----------



## Bug Guy

You're absolutely right Dick. The landowners are responding to hunter pressure with posted signs so there is no need to have the legislature involved with putting a cap on NR numbers. Less access = Less hunting pressure. It's a self correcting issue.

BBJ, I would unfortunately agree that many landowners do not manage for wildlife and that is their perogative. I would submit that many are probably managing their frustration level with respect to hunter numbers. By that I mean they will put up with a little aggravation when fields are rutted up or trash is left in the field and other such nonsense, but will react when the level of such activities reaches their personal thresholds. Either way, the results are the same IMO. No legislative involvement is needed. It is the landowner that decides if a G/O, NR, R, or other person gain access to the property and for what purpose.


----------



## Maverick

> Less access = Less hunting pressure.


IMHO...... less access = more hunting pressure. More people compete for less avaiable land!
There is less pressure on their personal land (the posted land), but not total avaiable land.


----------



## KEN W

Bug guy.....not as simple as you think.Yes the farmers can dictate HOW many is to many.But the legislature and residents determine WHO those are.Look at the difference between SD and ND.....farmers are determining how many can hunt.But the legislature in SD has decreed that only 5,000 of those can be NR.Here we allow as many as want to come.NR here are feeding the G/O leasing for their benefit.If there were no NR would we still have all that leasing?.....NO


----------



## barebackjack

KEN W said:


> Bug guy.....not as simple as you think.Yes the farmers can dictate HOW many is to many.But the legislature and residents determine WHO those are.Look at the difference between SD and ND.....farmers are determining how many can hunt.But the legislature in SD has decreed that only 5,000 of those can be NR.Here we allow as many as want to come.....a lot of times to the detriment of resident hunters.NR here are feeding the G/O leasing for their benefit.If there were no NR would we still have all that leasing?


The answer to your last question is no.

Less NRs equals less clients for the land leasing guides. Less income (clients) means less land being leased up for the purpose of guiding.


----------



## Bug Guy

KEN W said:


> Bug guy.....not as simple as you think.Yes the farmers can dictate HOW many is to many.But the legislature and residents determine WHO those are.Look at the difference between SD and ND.....farmers are determining how many can hunt.But the legislature in SD has decreed that only 5,000 of those can be NR.Here we allow as many as want to come.NR here are feeding the G/O leasing for their benefit.If there were no NR would we still have all that leasing?.....NO


Nothing ever is, but I suspect that to involve the govt. won't make it any more simple. Additionally, you must realize that my posts are very generalized because to discuss every viewpoint on this very complex question would require more typing than I care to perform. I do know one outfitter personally and he has a 7 to 1 ratio of R clients to NR clients. He guides for 8 weekends and has only one group from Wisconsin. The the other 7 groups are residents and they have all returned to hunt the next year for 3 years running. Does he lease? Yes. Does he lease to much? I don't know. It's his business. Will limiting the number of NR hunters affect him or the others in the business? Again, I don't know. I suspect not based on what I know, but I will admit, that it's not an impressive amount on the G/O business in ND.

I just don't think reducing or limiting the number of NR hunters will alieviate the hunting pressure. My grandfather told me years ago..."God only made so much land, but people keep coming out of the woodwork" A quote I never forgot. That is why having my own place became a priority and the whole family has sacrificed to see it become a reality.

Happy Holidays everyone!


----------



## Dick Monson

An increasing population is not the problem drawing too many people here. We know nation wide the hunter numbers are plummeting. For every 100 that quit only 60 some new ones are recruited. And habitat is shrinking.

Other states have lost their wildlife populations or the ability to access them so those fellows come here. They have time, money, and can travel easily. It is a country wide problem not just ND. Whether its commercializing Kansas or ND or any other state, it is the same problem. States need to give priority to their residents.

What is dumbfounding is that legislators who vote against a cap, cap their own land by posting.


----------



## water_swater

To understand the problem from a ND perspective here is an interesting statistic. In 2008 there were 26,200 duck hunters that hunted ND R and NR in 2009 there were 30,600. Well if there is 20,000 NR licenses sold we know who is doing the hunting in ND it is not the residents. We are being driven out with the hassle and leasing of land. Just estimating 33% of the duck hunters in the state are resident, thats an alarmingly high number!

To find the data go to http://flyways.us/ scroll down until you see Hunter Activity and and Harvest Report for 2009 then download the document and scroll to the central flyway.


----------



## snow

Swatter`

Not really accuate #'s,the chart does'nt show how many land owners hunt their own land,which they donot need a license~

And I'll bet there are [plenty of land owners bangin birds on their own property.


----------



## templey_41

snow said:


> Swatter`
> 
> Not really accuate #'s,the chart does'nt show how many land owners hunt their own land,which they donot need a license~
> 
> And I'll bet there are [plenty of land owners bangin birds on their own property.


Do you really think alot of farmers/landowners hunt? I'd bet no. the majority of landowners are farmers and the fall is all about the harvest not waterfowl.


----------



## tikkat3

snow said:


> Swatter`
> 
> Not really accuate #'s,the chart does'nt show how many land owners hunt their own land,which they donot need a license~
> 
> And I'll bet there are [plenty of land owners bangin birds on their own property.


Yes they do need a liscense!


----------



## Bob Kellam

from the ND Century Code

20.1-03-04. When licenses to hunt, fish, or trap not required of residents. Subject to
the provisions of this title:
1. Any resident, or any member of the resident's family residing customarily with the
resident, may hunt small game, fish, or trap during the open season without a
license upon land owned or leased by the resident.
2. Residents or nonresidents under the age of sixteen years may fish without a fishing
license.
3. Residents may fish at a private fish hatchery without a resident fishing license.
4. Developmental center at westwood park, Grafton patients, North Dakota youth
correctional center students, school for the deaf students, North Dakota vision
services - school for the blind students, state hospital patients, community health
and retardation service unit patients under direct therapeutic care, and residents of
facilities licensed by the state department of health and the department of human
services may fish without a resident fishing license. Patients of these institutions
must be identified. The department shall issue authority to each institution.
5. Residents may fish without a resident fishing license on free fishing days. The date
of these free fishing days may be set by proclamation by the governor.
6. Residents under age sixteen may take fur-bearers without a fur-bearer license.
7. Residents under age sixteen may take small game or waterfowl without a small
game license.
8. Residents who are enrolled as students or serving as certified instructors during
official aquatics education program events of the game and fish department may be
granted free fishing privileges by discretion of the director.
9. Upon presentation of valid leave papers and a valid North Dakota operator's license,
a resident who is on leave and is on active duty as a member of the United States
Page No. 2
armed forces or the United States merchant marine may hunt small game, fish, or
trap during the open season without a license.

Waterfowl is federally managed


----------



## dakotashooter2

I have been searching but having a hard time finding many delailed numbers relating to resident/non-resident waterfowl hunters . Most are indicating that resident/non-resident numbers are currently about the same being somewhere around or just under 20,000 each . Now that is a big change compared to 30 years ago however a few numbers that did pop up for the years 1975/1976 were 67,000 resident waterfowl hunters and 5,000 and 9,000 non resident hunters. While that does reflect a significant increase in todays NR hunters it reflects even a bigger decrease in resident hunters. Since the issue of this thread is pressure if one looks at the total numbers you will find that even with the significant increase in NRs the total number of hunters is around 1/2 of what it was in the 70s through the mid 80's. Add to that the sigificantly low waterfowl numbers during that same time period and your cries of excessive pressure are a joke. I can tell you from experience that when I go into what most today call a heavily pressured area I'm lucky if I see 1/3 of the hunters one would have seen when I started hunting. My point being that while the NR numbers are up and seem high, pressure is actually lower than it has historically been. And that dispite heavier pressure in years of less abundant game and habitat eventual improvement in habitat allowed waterfowl numbers to explode to todays higher than long term average levels. Another thin that isn't being considered is that game populations help regulate the number of NR hunters. Some years back we had a couple of abundant years with one drawing around 30,000 NR waterfowl hunters as soon as waterfowl populations dipped a bit so did the NR hunter numbers. That sounds a bit like a natural, "hunter pressure concep" to me. Note that I am pushing 50 and have hunted waterfowl longer than 1/2 or more of the ND waterfowlers have been alive. Let me tell you...right now, ND waterfowlers have NOTHING to complain about.


----------



## Bob Kellam

Here are the waterfowl numbers through 2005

Year Res NR Total

1975 67,267 6,043 73,310 
1976 63,660 8,530 72,190 
1977 63,117 7,933 71,050 
1978 64,081 9,044 73,125 
1979 59,053 8,682 67,735 
1980 55,508 8,262 63,770 
1981 52,079 6,931 59,010 
1982 52,565 7,615 60,180 
1983 48,575 7,085 55,660 
1984 45,814 7,111 52,925 
1985 41,470 6,380 47,850 
1986 42,048 7,507 49,555 
1987 40,890 7,505 48,395 
1988 26,838 4,222 31,060 
1989 29,394 5,778 35,172 
1990 27,529 5,522 33,051 
1991 27,857 5,928 33,785 
1992 22,816 8,175 30,991 
1993 30,271 9,534 39,805 
1994 35,329 10,316 45,645 
1995 37,054 11,997 49,051 
1996 39,009 13,750 52,759 
1997 36,953 15,561 52,514 
1998 39,513 19,191 58,704 
1999 39,118 21,873 60,991 
2000 35,992 25,165 61,157 
2001 35,310 30,029 65,339 
2002 34,138 29,992 64,130 
2003 30,771 26,066 56,837 
2004 28,336 24,375 52,711 
2005 28,331 25,455 53,786


----------



## 9manfan

Bob Kellam said:


> Here are the waterfowl numbers through 2005
> 
> Year Res NR Total
> 
> 1975 67,267 6,043 73,310
> 1976 63,660 8,530 72,190
> 1977 63,117 7,933 71,050
> 1978 64,081 9,044 73,125
> 1979 59,053 8,682 67,735
> 1980 55,508 8,262 63,770
> 1981 52,079 6,931 59,010
> 1982 52,565 7,615 60,180
> 1983 48,575 7,085 55,660
> 1984 45,814 7,111 52,925
> 1985 41,470 6,380 47,850
> 1986 42,048 7,507 49,555
> 1987 40,890 7,505 48,395
> 1988 26,838 4,222 31,060
> 1989 29,394 5,778 35,172
> 1990 27,529 5,522 33,051
> 1991 27,857 5,928 33,785
> 1992 22,816 8,175 30,991
> 1993 30,271 9,534 39,805
> 1994 35,329 10,316 45,645
> 1995 37,054 11,997 49,051
> 1996 39,009 13,750 52,759
> 1997 36,953 15,561 52,514
> 1998 39,513 19,191 58,704
> 1999 39,118 21,873 60,991
> 2000 35,992 25,165 61,157
> 2001 35,310 30,029 65,339
> 2002 34,138 29,992 64,130
> 2003 30,771 26,066 56,837
> 2004 28,336 24,375 52,711
> 2005 28,331 25,455 53,786


So why is the resident numbers so low compared to 30 years ago, from 67,000 down to 28,000, that is a big drop in hunters, I guess most states are seeing declining numbers but them figures surprized me alot, the non-resident numbers don't surprize either, the way Minnesota has drained their pot holes over the years, people are looking for quality hunts and I guess ND has that yet.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> So why is the resident numbers so low compared to 30 years ago, from 67,000 down to 28,000, that is a big drop in hunters, I guess most states are seeing declining numbers but them figures surprized me alot, the non-resident numbers don't surprize either, the way Minnesota has drained their pot holes over the years, people are looking for quality hunts and I guess ND has that yet.


These numbers correlate with the out flow of people from ND. I bet if you would do what the % of people leaving ND to the increase in NR hunters the numbers could be close to the same percentages. It would be a study if not done could warrant a good grade at a college or even HS stats class.


----------



## 9manfan

Chuck Smith said:


> So why is the resident numbers so low compared to 30 years ago, from 67,000 down to 28,000, that is a big drop in hunters, I guess most states are seeing declining numbers but them figures surprized me alot, the non-resident numbers don't surprize either, the way Minnesota has drained their pot holes over the years, people are looking for quality hunts and I guess ND has that yet.
> 
> 
> 
> These numbers correlate with the out flow of people from ND. I bet if you would do what the % of people leaving ND to the increase in NR hunters the numbers could be close to the same percentages. It would be a study if not done could warrant a good grade at a college or even HS stats class.
Click to expand...

Has the population of ND dropped that much in 30 years , If so, I guess I can understand that, growing up and living in a small town in SW Mn., we have nothing to offer to keep our youth around, if you don't work at the local elevator or school system, there's not much for jobs, and I suppose that's why some kids fall away from duck hunting, move to the big city and the hunting opportunity's are less, sad to see, but that's life I guess..


----------



## dakotashooter2

The numbers don't reflect what I originally thought but still somewhat make my point. If you average them for the past 31 years (53,000) the number still shows that even with the significant increase of NRs in the past 15 years, todays (as close as we have data for) hunter numbers are right on average for that time period. 1988 seems to be a pivotel year in hunter numbers. I don't recall exactly but that probably coeincides with a period of drought around then. I think we kind of lost a generation (recruitment)of resident hunters during that period and it took a while for those numbers to build again. Mean while NR hunter with even worse conditions in their home states stepped into their place.


----------



## Bob Kellam

I think you can factor a lot into those numbers and not just out-migration. 1975 there was little if any posted land in ND it was simply ask and hunt. Access is and always will be the single limiting factor to hunting opportunity. I'm sure out migration had some effect but to say it is all because of that is a stretch.

In the late 60's and early 70's MN used to be a premier duck hunting destination, I know i was there. We are seeing the same thing happen to ND only a lot slower pace. All of the constant R vs. NR bickering has also had an affect on waterfowling in ND. I guess I see it like this, It's my state Your welcome to come as much as regulations allow and enjoy the time while your here. Just don't tell me I'm wrong if I want to propose regulations that will benefit us all by slowing the pace of decline. That's just how I see it.

Cheers


----------



## Chuck Smith

> In the late 60's and early 70's MN used to be a premier duck hunting destination, I know i was there. We are seeing the same thing happen to ND only a lot slower pace. All of the constant R vs. NR bickering has also had an affect on waterfowling in ND. I guess I see it like this, It's my state Your welcome to come as much as regulations allow and enjoy the time while your here. Just don't tell me I'm wrong if I want to propose regulations that will benefit us all by slowing the pace of decline. That's just how I see it.


Bob agreed. But NR also have the right to voice concerns over regulations. Just like R has a right to voice concerns about making new regulations. Because otherwise it is like having a one sided debate. Another thing is when ever a NR from MN brings up regulating fishing licenses some R from ND complain it is apples to oranges....It is and also it is not. Fish vs waterfowl...apples and oranges. But regulating a natural resource inside a state for the betterment of its residents ... apples to apples. When in fact fishing (walleyes) is a state resource paid by residents (stocking programs paid by residents!) when waterfowl is migration. But we don't need to open that can of worms.

Another thing about the waterfowl license numbers is when it became a separate license between small game and waterfowl. That also skews the numbers.


----------



## BB

It seems like rural areas anywhere I hunt in the Dakotas, MB, and SK are losing farms and people more and more each year. Almost anyone we talk to either didn't like duck hunting and can't believe we drive all that way to shoot ducks; or they duck hunted way back when. Access in the areas of Canada we hunt is almost a given and i would say we get on 95% of the spots we ask on and locals would probably even have a better success rate. From the small sample I have seen in some places is that they have world class hunting within miles but they just don't do it. It just seems the guys Ive met work on massive farms 3, 4 thousand acres up to 12k and can't get away much in October but they are drooling to get out and chase deer in Mid November.


----------



## FLOYD

I guess one thing that I notice is that I can't hardly name 5 farmers in ND that I've encountered that are between 40-60 yrs old who actually hunt waterfowl. I get the feeling many of them are a) too busy and/or b) got burnt out on it when they were younger. If I were to guess, 30 yrs ago most farmers bought the licenses just in case they wanted to go out and shoot a couple ducks one morning. The average hrs afield chasing waterfowl for these guys was probably very small, more of a "hey Bill, theres a bunch of ducks on one of my sloughs, should we go shoot a bunch in the morning before we start combining?" And they probably did this 2-3 times throughout the fall, maybe a little more if it rained.

The way present day waterfowling is, one small group of hunters can probably have nearly the same effect as 10 or 20 resident hunters in 1970. I'm guessing back then they hunted 1 or 2 of their favorite sloughs regardless. They probably didn't hunt the roosts and they didn't hunt the feed fields all that much probably. Today if there is 2 or 3 parties in a township, chances are they are all trying to hunt the same field come later in the season. So basically now 1 or 2 of those parties have to move to the next township and compete with the 2 or 3 parties in that twp, and so on. Not to mention guys will put on hundreds of miles in a day scouting because thats what they read on the internet to do.

I guess my point is that I don't see how it would be wise to say that the effect of a group of todays hunters is in the same stratosphere as it was in 1975. One township could probably handle 30-40 guys hunting 30 years ago, today its not that many at all because people hunt the points of greatest concentration IMO. I mean really, do you really think many farmers looked more than 2 miles from their land to hunt ducks in the 70's? I say heck no. And field hunting was nothing like it is today. Some birds could likely be had, but I'm sure it wasnt the slaughter house it is today.

Just my opinion.


----------



## water_swater

Two things...

First waterfowl hunting has changed, it used to be about firing lines. All you had to do was be there and get in line where you think the geese were going to some and start raining bb's. You didnt need permission, there were no boats to go busting birds around. How many guys could afford decoys? There was some field hunting but it was limited.

Second HIP data is much more accurate than total licenses sold. A NR who buys a license is much more likely to use it than a resident who buys the sportsmens license. My dad has bought the license every year and been waterfowling one time since I've been alive. Is he hunting?


----------



## BB

I don't know how big of a factor it was but it seems like a lot more guys hunted snow geese in ND back in the day as they were there earlier stayed longer the way it sounds. Now at least what I have seen is you get about 5-7 days with solid #'s in an area. Again I don't know how many residents hunted them but the opportunity to hunt them for 2-3 weeks in Oct doesn't seem to be what it used to. 
I agree that cost is another big issue. We had a local guy who was about 30 hunt with us this fall and he couldn't believe the equipment we had invested not to mention the effort it took to deploy it. He hadn't hunted geese since he was a kid and his experience was laying in a fence row with a few big shells out probably shooting lead (?) at anything that came remotely close. I think he thought we were crazy for passing on some birds that were 30-35 yds up hoping they would get closer. Some did it right to the feet of our blinds and he mentioned he had never seen that so that was cool. These days you either need (or the perception is) a $250 blind, trailer full of decoys, $25/box shells, roboducks, etc., etc. Oh yeah, you better have some serious $$ saved up to scout all season as Im sure plenty of us would rather not know what we spend looking for some field all season that we can hopefully shoot 5 mallards in the next day.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND

FLOYD pretty much hit the nail on the head.

You can't compare the amount of pressure on the birds from 1970 to today by just going by licenses sold. Hunters today go out and hunt sometimes every day of the season. Some hunt morning to night, some hunt many square miles. Totally different then back in the 70's and 80's. Back then guys hunted maybe a few hours a handfull of days a season, didn't travel a whole lot from their local areas, and probably didn't kill near as many birds as some groups do in a single day now!

A better comparison would be number of birds killed, or actuall hunting time in the field. Not sure if those numbers are available or even where to look, maybe GNF has that data through surveys. Bob, do you know if that kind of data is available?


----------



## Bob Kellam

Harvest statistics are available, I will do a some digging and see if I can find the current survey.

I agree with Floyde also. in the early 70's i was probably the exception to the rule for waterfowl hunting as I loved it(still do) and hunted hard as much as I could but for the most part many would see some birds in the field and try to swat a few for a nice meal of something different. A duck dinner was special.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Floyd did hit the nail on the head...

Also look at the season structures....early goose, youth, R, NR, Spring, etc. Birds see more decoy spreads longer so they get educated. Even spring hunting helps educate birds....yes they have summer to forget...but a few shots fired and they know to avoid.


----------



## FLOYD

Lets be honest here, one only has to look back 15 yrs to see drastic change in waterfowling. There was a certain percentage that were hunting fields specifically for ducks back in the mid 90's, but not that many prior to the invention of the spinner. At that time residents probably hunted a fairly small area, and most NR's probably were either here to hunt pheasants primarily or to visit family. Obviously there are exceptions.

A few had bigfoots at that time, but not really mainstream yet probably. And it was in small quantities. So most people were probably limited to hunting potholes for ducks for the most part, and chances are most people back then came to ND to either shoot ducks or snows so they weren't specifically hunting canadas much probably. My point is that even then, in 1995, each section could probably handle someone hunting in many situations. Thats just not the case now. People are all into the fad......read the internet, learn what they need to know in 10 mins, buy gas with money they may or may not have or better yet put it on the card, drive to ND, drive all over the state until they find birds, then put out their trailer full of decoys that they'll probably have to sell after the season to live through the winter. Repeat 3 weeks later.

Wow, how things have changed......


----------



## Chuck Smith

Another thing is look at the economy and also baby boomer area.... People retired younger, had or have $$$ to spend on hobbies, etc. All are factors. Plus like you mentioned....waterfowl hunting became a Fad. Look at the number of new decoy companies, call makers, blind makers, camo patterns, etc.

Waterfowl hunting became popular again!


----------



## Blue Plate

The number of NR hunters going to ND is decreasing, why would their be a need for a cap?


----------



## snow

Ya know,its funny that folks bicker about the NR's and caps in NoDak,BUT you hardly here one word about SoDak caps,fact is that evrything that NoDak has passes thru SoDak and from my experinence most res's don't hunt waterfowl and the sdgfp's limit non res 10day tags(state wide) to 3500 and 750 3day tags,needless to say very little pressure.

FYI


----------



## barebackjack

snow said:


> Ya know,its funny that folks bicker about the NR's and caps in NoDak,BUT you hardly here one word about SoDak caps,fact is that evrything that NoDak has passes thru SoDak and from my experinence most res's don't hunt waterfowl and the sdgfp's limit non res 10day tags(state wide) to 3500 and 750 3day tags,needless to say very little pressure.
> 
> FYI


Are you sure you're from MN? :lol:


----------



## snow

Yeah JACK,from Mn~ Just sayin~


----------



## Chuck Smith

> Ya know,its funny that folks bicker about the NR's and caps in NoDak,BUT you hardly here one word about SoDak caps,fact is that evrything that NoDak has passes thru SoDak and from my experinence most res's don't hunt waterfowl and the sdgfp's limit non res 10day tags(state wide) to 3500 and 750 3day tags,needless to say very little pressure.
> 
> FYI


A few reasons why people bicker or NR bicker..... SD is a pay to play state. SD already has caps in place....ND does not. That is why bickering from both side (for and against...for wants it to themselves so to speak...against does not want to see a yearly opportunity taken away.) ND is not a pay to play state (contrary to what people say.). Also look at the trespass laws in both states....SD...need to get permission period. ND if not posted go and hunt. Huge difference. Also the sheer numbers of hunters that got to each state per year (both pheasant and waterfowl) from a fiscal point of reference. When comparing both states it is apples to oranges when looking at hunting opportunities.


----------



## snow

Chuck,I agree SoDak has its place for pay upland hunting,but we're talking waterfowl here,(apples to apples) I've been drawn for 10day tags for several years now and have yet to pay to hunt private land,actually access is easy for waterfowl,and "yes" thats my point SoDak has caps in place,right or wrong thats the way it is,just sayin~And the waterfowl hunting is great to boot.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Snow.... here is something people really tend not to think about.....migration. This is not in pressure but in the natural phase of migration. Why people choose ND over SD.

I go hunting in Canada anywhere from Oct 6-20th each year depending when I can get the time off. And the migration for most of the time is not in full swing just yet....it is close but not peaking.

So lets take some dates in ND....when most people will hunt is from OCT 6th- NOV 1st. The migration just starts to hit the USA about OCT 20th or so most of the years. So when does migration hits SD around Nov 1st or later. Now after Nov 1st....what takes place in most northern states... deer season. So people don't want to miss out on deer season.

When do you typically go to SD to hunt? Peak Migration or earlier "local" ducks?


----------



## FLOYD

They choose ND over SD because its easy. Period. I've hunted SD early, late, and in between and its just as good if not better than ND. Less pressure, birds are settled into patterns. Last fall you could have put a fishing net on the front of your truck and drove down the road 2 miles in NE SD and had your limit of greenheads. And it lasted all fall, from early October till freezeup.

Why can't anyone just answer the question snow asked......Why is it nobody says a peep about SD's cap? It's because people can go pillage ND without going through any of the "hassle" associated with hunting in SD.....don't have to apply, don't have to knock on anyone's door, etc etc. and they don't have a Sodak Outdoors that is rated No. 1 to go comb for information.

If ND hunting didn't exist, South Dakota would be subject to all the same crap that ND puts up with from all the whiners. One way or another people from outside the state would whine and whine and whine until they got the quotas either significantly raised or eliminated.

In my opinion, ND is what is saving SD from dealing with it. Maybe I'm crazy, who knows....


----------



## Chuck Smith

Flyod... I did answer the question....many times over... Like you stated...no applicaiton, no knocking on doors, earlier migration, and ND does not have a cap already in place! So let me ask people this.... is it easier to keep a law or regulation from getting put in place or is it easier to over turn a regulation that is already in place? There is your answer why people don't bicker about SD....because it is already in place!


----------



## swift

This is silly. People choose ND over SD for waterfowling because it is Better in ND. Just as more people come to SD than ND for pheasants, Because it's better in SD. SD is a good example that pay to hunt will survive and flourish if it is not addressed on a legislative level. limiting numbers of NR's is the easy way to address the commercialization of hunting. You think less NR's will ultimately result in less land leasing and better land access. Fact is you want to control your neighbors land without talking to your neighbors. It's your neighbors that are leasing the lands. Tell the guys leasing their land how you feel. Address the root of the problem instead of attacking the people you don't know.


----------



## KurtR

The pheasant hunting is definately better here and after working and hunting in ND and SD the last 4 years i would have to say it is on even par or been a little better here. I like the fact when i get permision to hunt i do not have to worry about some a hole that is going to come out there and set decoys up right by me. Also with all the money comeing in from pheasants is why we have so much public land open for hunting. If you can not come to the mobridge area and shoot a limit of pheasants regulary on public land your are either fat and lazy or cant shoot for ****. i like that we have a cap here but other than pierre we dont make money of the waterfowl that is what the chinese chickens are for.


----------



## snow

Chuck~
I choose my hunting date by watching the migration unfold,4-5 years ago I'd pull the trigger in SoDak around the end of october,last couple of years we've had really warm weather,infact last november I went the 3rd week,crops were 90% standing,fields flooded and the migration was just starting,so it all depends on the weather and when the birds move for me.

Hunting the standing/flooded crops was a blast~


----------



## Decoyer

I agree with Floyd, hunters are 10x more efficient now than they have ever been. The really amazing thing is how young these guys are that have a trailer full of decoys and a nice truck to pull it with. I get that as a college student you can work hard in the summers and have a few extra bucks in your pocket come fall semester but come on.... Just speaking for the area within 1.5 hrs of Fargo, birds are getting pressured more as a result of NDSU students that are here SPECIFICALLY to hunt. I know a lot of guys that order there class schedule just so they can hunt 2 or 3 days during the week, and I can't criticize because I did the same until I realized some things should be of higher priority than a limit of greenheads at that point in my life. It seems with a lot of them the attitude is hunt first, acidemics later without really realizing the consiquences of their actions. Try finding a job in this economic climate with a sub 2.0 GPA as a college graduate. I think all of you would be REALLY surprised how many guys you see driving around scouting with out of state plates are actually college-aged kids going to NDSU, UND, or some other institution in ND.

I know this probably isn't going to be very well recieved by a lot of the people on this forum, but my pitch would be to change the current college student hunting laws. Just as with any college sport, ACIDEMICS should come first. Maybe instead of letting college students have free rain, it should be a restricted Friday-Sunday license with a one full week option built in. This week would allow for students to part-take in family/friends hunting trips that may be an annual tradition. The whole idea behind the current college student hunting laws is to provide a "perk" while going to school in ND, it isn't to let people attend college JUST so they can hunt all season. Just a thought. The whole problem with this, as with everything else on this topic is that it is very hard to take something away once its been offered. That's why you don't hear any b*tching from SD. They had their system in place while it was a relative non-issue. You can't miss what you never had.

My 2 cents.


----------



## BB

I hope you tried to spell academics wrong


----------



## FLOYD

BB said:


> I hope you tried to spell academics wrong


Really? Killer punctuation bud.


----------



## Chuck Smith

That is a big curve ball in this whole debate. The students that are NR's. They get a R license but you see the NR plates driving all through the county.

I know that most schools perks are... free admission to sporting, art, plays, etc type of events.


----------



## Decoyer

hah. Just goes to show I spent too much time in the field. As my girlfriend frequently points out, I'm an engineer therefore so I'm good with numbers, not words.  The point remains the same.

Chuck, your right. Its a HUGE curve ball that I'm guessing most people don't realize is occuring. BB, do you have anything you want to add? I'm guessing based on your post you don't agree? By all means let me know your point of view. That's why I posted it, to get some good debate going.


----------



## BB

Nope that's it...just thought it was odd that someone on the soapbox stressing academics spelt the wurd wrong.
Actually, I think students who live in a state for most of the year (some the entire year) should be treated like residents. I lived in Iowa for a few years before college for 9 months/yr and basically did everything the residents did. I think their laws said you had to live there for 90 days to receive the resident hunting license which I thought was a fair system. I wouldn't be against students having to prove they're full time students to receive these benefits. If some kid is taking 8 credits a semester and dragging a 4 yr undergrad out to 7 years while he hunts 4-5 days a week, I think that is wrong and it should be regulated if possible. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Decoyer

I don't dissagree with you. As a student you live here, but is that really the reason you are here? I will say it would blow away a lot of guys if they knew how much some guys hunt while in college. IMO if someone wants to hunt as a resident in ND while going to school thats fine, but then they can no longer be a dependent under their parents and transfer their residency to ND while here.

The argument is probably not worth it anyway as I doubt anything will get changed. Like I said before, it's almost impossible to take something away from people once it's offered. Just ask MN about attempting to lower fish limits and establish slots.


----------



## water_swater

Yes the college kids my skew the data, however, those college kids do live work and spend their money in ND. Until ND realizes there are few reasons anyone wants to live here, and the outdoors is a biggie we will continue whoring more and more access to guides and other embrassing entities.


----------



## d2jlking

Full disclosure- I'm a non-resident.

I find it hard to believe that "college kids" are contributing heavily to the overall hunting pressure in the state of ND. Maybe I'm wrong. Still, it seems to me that a kid who is attending college in ND, as a full time student should be able to hunt there as a resident. Why not? Those non-resident students are contributing huge sums of money (as a whole) to ND's economy. They live there fall through spring (and maybe summer if they attend summer school). I don't want ND to cap NR hunters. That's just me being selfish.....because I love to come to your state and hunt. However, this whole college student issue seems like nit-picking. I have read countless posts on this site talking about getting young hunters involved with the sport, and here is the next generation hunting, and people are mad about it?


----------



## Chuck Smith

D2....not mad but when people start talking about NR and pressure. They have to take in all things when talking about pressure.

Like I have stated over and over....

Early goose season
Youth season
R opener
NR opener
College kids
Better farming (less wasted crop on ground)
guides
etc.

All of this has to do with pressure and bird movements.


----------



## d2jlking

I suppose it's a complicated issue, no easy answers. I am not in favor of capping, as I stated earlier. I also am not in favor of restricting NR college students (they are an important part of the hunting future). I do like the idea of different openers for NR and R. Doesn't ND already restrict NR hunters from using PLOTS during the first week of bird season? That seems fair to me, and I come to ND to hunt pheasants more than other species. I like that the R are getting a chance at the public ground before I do. It seems fair.


----------



## raat475

Two in my area have gone away in the last two years. Talked to the G & F agent about it and he said they were set up with Canada Geese in mind during the 70's and they don't see the need for them anymore???

retouching


----------

