# 2048 may die then what



## Hotel owner (Jan 10, 2003)

Although I have wavered on this thing I must say I hope this bill does not get passed. I support and want free lance hunting and agree that over commercialization hurts the sport and the business community. However I don't see this bill as fixing much and as a back door attempt to limit the commercial side of things. Access and Habit are the real issues. Trying to limit NR so to limit in flex of money so to limit leases, so to increase access is not, IMHO the way to go. Unfortunately, I think we may have missed an opportunity to focus on a direct way to improve the MAJORITY interests in all this. I wish groups like this could of advocated for laws to raise revenue and secure public access. The argument I hear here a lot is that the PLOTS lands stink and getting access on other land is VERY difficult. This is the argument for people TOO LEASE land! Trying to discourage this by reducing options doesn't seem to be in many peoples best interest.

I believe it may be VERY possible to multiple acres for public access by 5 fold fairly easily. If we raise license costs say to 100 for nonresidence and 40 for residence, add a Upland Stamp say for 20 bucks that is good for one month only with the ability to purchase one every month of the season, and allow the state to enter into LONG TERM LEASES with farmers I believe that the habitat and access can be greatly increased. With a strategy like this access could grow with the increase in hunters. Increased access reduces the need for leases and guides.

I realize this is not going to happen now. Hopefully 2048 will fade away and from it a better strategy that is in the majorities interests will emerge.


----------



## Red-dog (Feb 19, 2003)

What if a law was passed where NRs had to hunt small restricted units, similar to the deer units, and the law said they couldn't hunt the same unit two years in a row. I think this would cut down the purchase of land by NRs significantly. Would you buy land and pay taxes on it if you could only hunt it every other year? Just another idea that may or may not help a very complicated issue.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

HO, pardon me for being a little short, but you must not have been folowing the session very closely. 1358, which sportspersons strongly supported, will raise something on the order of 3.3MM for public access aquisition. Because of licensing formats and numbers, the brunt of this "new money" for PLI programs will come from residents. In other words, we're carrying the brunt of the load for helping fix this problem, not casting it on the backs of nonresidents.

In your part of the world more habitat and access can help. With the right habitat, you can grow more pheasants and creat hunting opportunities that didn't previously exist - to a point. For waterfowl, access is only one of a list of issues and is not a magic bullet. If every square inch of ground N and E of the Missouri were "open", we still can't have an unlimited number of hunters. Ducks, unlike pheasants, don't fly 100's of yards when they get chased - they fly hundreds of miles. Yes, getting to the ducks is important, but pressure - the number of people getting at the ducks - is also very important to ensure the hunt is enjoyable for all and there's actually something to hunt.

43,000 total waterfowl hunters in SD (2,000 of which are 3 day licenses). 23,000 total waterfowl huntes in Sask. 65,000 total waterfowl hunters in ND. We're already bearing more than our fair share of pressure.

Those that wish to boil all of the hunting issues down to the simple component of "access" are missing the point.


----------



## Hotel owner (Jan 10, 2003)

Dan I thnk you are right Ducks are different than the Pheasant situation. And I would have to agree that pressure may need to be limited in some way. As I said I have wavered a lot of these issues. I did not see a lot of support for the idea to limit hunting hours as a way to reduce pressure. I think that was an idea worth more consideration and debate. I must be honest and say the issue I am most concern about is Pheasants. We do shoot some ducks and geese but there is almost no pressure on them out here and of course it is not the same experience as you have in the east.

So much focus is on just limiting NR because some people seem to think that solves all the problems. I don't.


----------



## Scraper (Apr 1, 2002)

Hotel Owner,

Has the hotel industry in DN ever looked into what they could do to attract more hunters their way?

I have always wondered what could be done if the local hotel owners were involved in opening land and improving habitat. They are in fact one of the benefactors of good hunting opportunities.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

2048 may live or die, doesn't matter, because both the necessity of the idea and the momentum behind the idea are unstoppable now. North Dakotans want North Dakota back. We want the NDGF to run the NDGF Department, not tourism, not GNDA, not Farm Bureau, not outfitters, not politicans who don't hunt. Scraper is right in that small town business has a golden opportunity to fill some of the void by coordinating access with demand, as they should. However more access alone without caps cannot work; it will be over run and as useless as it is now. An unlimited amount of water will not fit in succsessively bigger jars.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

HO, you can get all sorts of creative that you want, because it's hunter days, or if you want to go that far, hunter hours that are the true measure of "pressure". This is of course a function of hunter numbers multiplied by the amount of time afield.

CO could issue unlimited, yes unlimited, nonresident bull tags without increasing harvest by a lick by saying you can only hunt certain hours or every third day or some other variation. Because it's no fun to see more hunters afield than elk, instead, they limit bull tags and heavily favor their residents on tag allocations, because other creative ideas also have consequences.

Almost all hunters (res and nonres) were against the half-day duck option in ND. "Pete, because your soccer practices are on Saturday morning and you've got Sunday School, you'll have to decide this year whether you want to hunt or play soccer, because you can't do both." Not a very good option. Would nonresidents appreciate being allowed to come in unlimited numbers but allowed to hunt only Monday through Thursday? Another option, but not a very good one.

It was easy to take pot shots at HPC and to say there were other options, but nobody tee'd up another proposal that met the objective, self-adjusting and permanent criteria. The state of hunting in ND isn't just a "too-many" or an "access" or a "comercialization/G/O" problem. It's all of the above. There never was an easy, pain-free, simple solution. Difficult, complex issues sometimes require difficult, complex solutions. One of those is now gone.


----------



## cancarver (Apr 6, 2002)

dick and others

would you have to fight against Hotel owners, tourism, farm bureau and etc, if you only tried to restrict guides and how much land they lease, or pay a tax based on amount they lease, rather than limit NR's? Would it have had a better chance to pass?


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

CC, as to your first question, other than the hotel owners, the answer is yes. The rest are all closely aligned.

I don't know how closely you've been following along, but please check the "ND Outdoors Issues" link on the home page. G/O was one of the legs of the three-legged stool this year. 2048, 1358 and 1050.

We worked long and hard prior to the session to explore some effective means of checking the industry against further growth. Didn't want to put anyone out of business and presumabley there could have been some growth through consolidation, but it is the proliferation of this industry that is one of, if not the, primary threat to all hunters (as opposed to shooters), and some sort of acreage limitation would have been the only way to do that.

Because of how far we had to go in terms our current outfitting statutes, it became very clear very quickly that an effective industry check was not feasible this session through 1050. The house version made some attempt to do so, but it wasn't effective and was dropped from the Senate version.

1050 still does many good things, and we've done what we can for now on a bunch of different fronts, including the issue you mention. Like I said, no magic bullet out there - just a bunch of work that needs to be done on a bunch of different fronts.


----------



## cancarver (Apr 6, 2002)

Dan,

please don't get me wrong, I am not in favor of caps to limit NR's, Least not severly. I have never had an access or over crowding problem when in ND. I am vehemtly oppposed to zones more than anything though, I don't see any good in them. I do see however the amount of land posted by guides and I don't agree with it one bit. There is no reason to use a guide in ND for any reason. With the exception of a sea duck hunt in maine I would never use a guide.

I quess that doing more with guides land limits, tax wouldn't have as drastic of effect on them but would possibly allow more access, and keep them in check. Without Tourism and everyone else standing up and having a voice.

My prediction is no matter what the limits this year, you will see more land posted. Its my opinion that this has caused a bir stir, and landowners are going to post their land just to know who is on it. People across the US are becoming more private and want things for themselves. Working in the natural resources, I have seen many landowners in WI and MN fight against easements, state run programs because it takes away their rights. Very similar to the Wise Use movement out west.

I just hope that in the next 2 years your group can come up with something that address's the commercialition/guides without impacting freelancing NR's.

thank you
good luck


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

What I would like to see is the organization of as many people we can to start and continue birddoging the elected officals that let us down.

Next as soon as the final waterfowl season lenghts and bag limits are out we need to start the lobby effort on Hoven. This needs a single and straight forward message.

We had limits in 2002 and we have less water and less birds we should be at the same level this year or less.

Next make sure that the Democrats are aware that given the right person { not Eddy] and the need for this legislation that we as sports men and women may have to start being single issue voters.

The battle for the Gov. office started today, we need a Gov that will do what is in the best interest of the majority of ND residents. I myself am putting Hoven and his troop on notice!

That I float this out because we have been let down and lied to and I for one will make sure that even though I am not in his district his feeble words after the vote will not be forgotten, along with his statement at the League of Women Voters Forum on March 15th he said that he would not vote for any bill that had caps and when he did the poll for ND Sportsmen he said he would what is the truth?. Ron you did make a mistake. That was forgeting that we will not forget. I do believe that Fox news still has that statement on tape. Will make a very good campaign add for a challenger. Or better yet { A Vote for Iverson which one, which one, ? }

Mr Blair sat next to him stating he would support 2048 then votes for commericalization interests instead of the people that put him in office. Then they have the b###'s to say we tried to bring it back, Duh as my blonde daughters says. vote Yes the first time and you need not make hollow statements after the fact.
We have a lot of work to do and we may need to be looking for people from our own ranks to challenge some of these people. I am very angry and have edited this many times. I am bitter over the games and BS that these two have spewed in the last 24 hours.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

CC, I know you're not in favor of caps. We're constantly defending statements like "this is all an access issue" or "you guys should be focusing on the guides" or "there must be options other than limiting nonresidents".

It's interesting what you find as the greatest impediment - the guides. That gets you off the hook as part of the problem. We see the amount of land becoming fee-only or purchased/leased by those who use it little and exclusively, and the large number of hunters trying to use the other land, as problems. Both are making things fairly miserable out there.

The fact of the matter is that it's virtually impossible to turn back the hands of time. Once in a while, you can yank the battery out so the clock stops. Knowing full well the practical and political limitations of this session, some of us tried to work on a bunch of different fronts to some extent rather than putting all our eggs in one basket on a sweeping measure that would have had no legs whatsoever. As it turns out, even stopping the hands of time was not feasable in this instance.

What many nonresidents don't realize (although many even here do) is that our efforts, including 2048, are the only things that could have saved non-outfitted hunting in this state, long-term. We're about 1 1/2 steps into the commercialization process, and when we get fully into number three, this will be a land largely for the shooters. In essense, we were saving us and you from you, and when you run your full course, all non-fee hunters will be left to crowded public hunting areas, assigned pit locations or the critterless fringes as in other states. The rest, the good stuff, will be occupied by the G/O's, wealthy out of state seasonal visitors and hunt clubs.

I'll say again, there was no single magic bullet. A little here, a little there, and we could have stuffed part of the genie back into the bottle. This was a dark day for waterfowl HUNTING in ND.

And you avid deer hunters better start getting active right now. I will guarantee you a bill will be introduced next session to loosen up the buck tags. And you know full well who you'll be up against in that fight.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I also am very unhappy about the way this went...I am a very sore loser.

Evidently our rural areas feel that resident dollars aren't as important as non-res. dollars.
SO...starting this fall,I will not buy anymore than necessary in small towns...From now on I will make sure I buy things like gas in Bismarck when I hunt in the SW.Every time I go through a large city I will make sure my gas tank is topped off.
I guess it's the only way to make our impact felt.
When we are just a commercial hunting state and everyone stays at lodges and eats there,it will be too late for this ECONOMIC developement crap.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Ken maybe a better solution would be to make it a point to shop in the small town and let them know that this dollar will not be spent when all land is leased in the future. we have the opportunity to show them how much of an impact we make.

Wed night when calling friends and business owners in se ND I had 3 business owners tell me that a lot of local people assumed that all the hunters in that area where from out of state.One runs a bar. He looked back at the checks written and reflected on conversations and realized that most new traffic was Res. hunters. He lobbied on our behalf. This business owner does not deserve a boycott, he if allowed should be identified and supported. Gregg knows of another that fits this mold also.

Lets not encourage the rural, urban propoganda but began to work in a direction that will have real effects come the next election.

The glass is half full or half empty. Which view you take will determine our hunting future.

Lord please provide the climate to set this ship back on course.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Your probably right...I'm just ticked off that those people don't seem to care about the hunters that live here year round.I'll probably eventually calm down.Time heals wounds.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

Ken, I've never met you but I'll have to agree somewhat with you and others here, how stupid do some of the Reps think the people they represent are? What an eye opener as to how things really work in Bismarck during the session. Too bad I don't live in the next leg. district south of me in Fargo, I know who I would NEVER vote for again.

I'm not sure how many people are listed on the e-tree but it's got to be many. Just a thought, what if everyone reported weekly what they Honestly spent in ND and where they spent it on fishing and hunting related acivities. Might be a good resource next time around.

I can't wait to see how the Gov. handles this issue this Fall.

Great job on this issue (2048) to Dan and Chris and all the other guys who put in MANY hours for the benefit of everyone.


----------

