# All past and present ND residents should read!!!



## strand (Sep 29, 2004)

I found this while reading my hometown paper online. My career could very well take me out of state as I finish school, and should that happen I would really like an opportunity to come back and hunt and fish with family and friends without paying a fortune.

What do you guys think?

Article from the Williston Herald.

Senator extends hunting hand to former residents

By Tim Pederson, Managing Editor
A local state senator is extending a welcome hand to former residents.

Sen. Stan Lyson, R-Williston, prefiled a legislative bill which will allow North Dakota citizens who have moved from North Dakota some resident hunting rights.

"There are so many people who leave our state for employment ... We want to let them know they are welcome back in our state," stated Lyson. "If hunters come back and enjoy our resources, when the time comes, they will transfer back to live in the state."

The bill proposes to charge out-of-state hunters a one-time $500 fee and they must purchase a general hunting license each year which costs $26.

To be eligible, an applicant must have been born in North Dakota and completed at least five years of elementary education in the state or if not born in North Dakota, they must have graduated from high school and attended at least five years of elementary and secondary school in the state.

The proposed bill also allows the governor to make whitetail deer licenses available to lifetime license holders by proclamation.

Lyson, who sits on the Senate Natural Resources Committee, expects the bill to be heavily debated. He said he left some portions of the proposal vague on purpose to leave room for compromise.

"Hunting and fishing are very emotional rights," Lyson stated.

He has four other legislators signed on as co-sponsors - another senator and three legislators from both parties.

The bill will be assigned a number in December. When prefiled, groups for and against the proposal have more time to study the bill, which may make for heavier debate in committee.

But, early response has been positive, Lyson said. Both out-of-state family and friends believe the idea is worthy of pursuing.

"It is always brought up that we should do more to get our citizens back," Lyson added.

Other states such as Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa and Colorado have similar bills.

"It is important to show the people who grew up here and lived here that they are still important citizens," Lyson said.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

As my schooling is coming to the end aswell, I find my self possible falling into the statistic of people leaving. So personally I am in favor of it.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

seems to me this will encourage more "on the fence" young people to leave the state. by on the fence I mean those that are active avid sportsmen that want to stay because of the outdoor opportunities but are torn by the fact that they can make more money in another state.

It will also Increase hunting pressure to unbelievable levels in the state, think about it, isn't this a North Dakota proposal that is basically seeking the same result as the Minnesota lawsuit?

I think this is in a sence a way to circumvent any action to cap NR licenses. Is that a good thing.

Someone propose a bill to increase ND wages to competative levels. I will support that!!

Sorry this one gets a *NO* form me, until you can convince me that it is in the best interest of the states permanent residents and natural resources.

Bob


----------



## Powder (Sep 9, 2003)

Correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't Legislator's be trying to STOP young adults from taking the knowledge they've gained at ND schools from leaving? This bill gives those people an out.

He needs to find ways to keep those people from leaving in the first place.

Sorry Bob you beat me to it!

Also, would this bill include people who spent 5 years of college in ND? If so I agree with this bill. I could be considered a resident!! :beer:


----------



## strand (Sep 29, 2004)

You raise a good point Bob. The revenue generated would be very beneficial to residents and I feel on top of the 500 dollars the annual fee could be bumped to more than 26, maybe 40 or 50 . If a former resident would like to participate they would be more than willing to pay this, if not oh well, they aren't being forced to participate. Yes, the pressure will rise slightly but it will still be difficult to try to plan a trip back for any significant amount of time depending upon distance traveling and work arraingments as many people will be just entering industry. I can't say for sure but I would most likely get back around holidays.

It is mentioned also that they will receive "some" benefits. I feel the same non-resident limits and zones should be put into effect. 14 day seasons, zones, etc.

Overall I feel this could be a good idea, although very heavily debated.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

How about keeping the 14 day season but get rid of the zones? 
I really don't believe pressure will change? It's already bad. The only way to get rid of the pressure issue is a CAP.

I do see your point about trying to keep people to stay is state. It kind of defeats the purpose of trying to keep the enthusiast hunter around. They keep their hunting rights and can still make a living in another state.


----------



## MOSSBACK (Jun 10, 2004)

If I was a former resident that moved out of state or on the fence about moving to get a higher wage it would be great.

I am a North Dakotan that would never dream of leaving this state and I think the Idea SUCKS!

I have friends and cousins that get drawn every three or four years for an out of state deer rifle or Muzzleloader tag I think thats plenty good for people that have left for greener pastures.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

Like I said the only reason I would be infavor of it is because I am one of the "on the fence" people. Believe me, with all my knowledge I have been learning in architecture, if I was marketable here I would stay here. Unfortunatley I can make 3x in other states. That's when I become one of NR's that is buying up the land? Now after living, going to school and pay taxes here for 27 years of my life, helping out farmers when I can. How would you view it? Make 3x the money-buy some land. Or stay here, work my *** off for 10-15 years to get a $1.00 an hour raise and keep my hunting rights? What is the better road for me to go down?


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Mav
That is your choice to make. I really do feel bad for the youth of ND. Many were born into traditions that they value deeply. I just feel it is the wrong way to look at the problem, is the real problem former residents that want to come back to hunt or ND's lack of business opportunity?

Seems to me former residents can come back to hunt upland any time they want, yes waterfowl is restricted, it should be. ND should have the same restrictions as SD IMO.

I do not know what is best for your situation but if you do leave we are the ones that will lose the most.

My two cents.

Bob


----------



## MOSSBACK (Jun 10, 2004)

My biggest complaint to the state legeslature would be, why would you want to reward someone for moving out of our state?


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

In my opinion, this bill is idiotic. You are either a resident or you aren't.

What about those people that take a paycut to stay in ND solely for the hunting and fishing opportunities? This bill penalizes those people since a non-resident would be granted resident hunting privileges.

I took a 40% paycut to move to ND simply because I like to shoot ducks. If this bill was passed, some ND native living in some other state could then be treated as a resident?

The real question is whether this legislator wants the year-around contributions from a ND resident or the short-term contributions of some native son that returns for a week or two.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

That 40% paycut I have been dealing with my whole life here, and a $500 fee compared to a Res. who pay about $100 depending on how many doe tags he applies for? It would take 5 years for Res. to produce the $500 of revenue for the game and fish? Now if he/she owned land they would still be considered a year round contribution?
The revenue could go twords more game wardons?


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

The contributions that I mentioned are contributions to ND's economy, not just the NDGF contributions that are derived from license sales. The heart of the matter is that hunting opportunities are one of the only things attracting or keeping people in ND. If you eliminate even part of the benefits of being a true resident of ND, you create even more incentive for people to leave.

People need to understand that ND isn't the only place with clean air, open spaces, low crime, and a good education system. What sets it apart are all these things plus freelance hunting opportunities.

Again, you are either a resident or you're not.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> Now if he/she owned land they would still be considered a year round contribution?


That's not a contribution to the economy? How? You have to figure that the owner will be out a few times a year to check on his land . That intales food,gas, fun money, they will be paying taxes on the land as well. Now if you are true northdakotan (not saying your not)you probably have some kind of a good work ethic (something we are known for around the country), and would probably have a house or maybe even build a house? More to the economy. Don't forget that the small town are dieing, not the big cities. Now you get some people togethor in a small town (for debating reasons) most of which were from ND, and have part time homes in these rural area and you have a town gaining economically instead of the whole state. Which is where we need $ to go to so we can keep those gas stations in small towns.

Just debating here. I know if I wasn't on the "Bubble" I would feel the same way as you guys!


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

No way. This bill rewards the exact behavior the state wishes to avoid. Instead reward the people who stay.



> "It is important to show the people who grew up here and lived here that they are still important citizens," Lyson said.


It is important to show the people who grew up here and live here now that they are more vital to North Dakota's social and economc fabric than those who took their skills, education, businesses, families and money,... and left while the getting was good.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> This bill rewards the exact behavior the state wishes to avoid. Instead reward the people who stay.





> There are so many people who leave our state for employment ... We want to let them know they are welcome back in our state," stated Lyson. "If hunters come back and enjoy our resources, when the time comes, they will transfer back to live in the state."


Ever think they looking down the road. All these people leaving, for the most part, don't want to? But will jump for financial gain! Now you have some people who have established themsleves and made a good life for themselves, but are not really happy about where they live. Now if they have an incentive to come back and relive their youth, it might turn back over to a resident.Otherwise the opportunity never presented itself?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Mav having the same status as a res for a fee will not encourage anyone to move back to the state. I speak from expericned. I moved back and knew in doing so that I would make less money. I really see no need for this other than it sounds like a favor for a leg to a contributor. Root out the real reason and it will be clear as to why this legislation is being offered up.

Beware and be prepared, this is just the first volley and it is designed to allow the opening up of our deer lic to G/O. Reason being that if they can do so for this why not for a bus group etc etc....


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

12


----------



## dosch (May 20, 2003)

Funny how true colors come out when its on the line. Anybody can pack up and go make the big bucks if that is what they want. Granted wages in ND are low, but I'd rather live my life being where I want to be.
Don't want to be the guy that rolls in around hunting season and puffs his chest out like a peacock when he opens his wallet then goes home and thinks my life sucks.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The only way I would accept this bill is if it was:

1. The license counted against the 1% nonresident quota
2. No one time $500, rather they pay 75% of the nonresident price
3. The governor is out of the loop
4. White-tail deer only

I can see it would be nice to do something for relatives to come back and hunt with us. However, this shouldn't add nonresident tags to the nonresident quota, and I can't believe anyone is dumb enough to want any governor every involved, ever again. The reduction in price for nonresident tags should not be excessive, but only a token reduction. I guess as long as populations are high enough, that doe tags remain, we could reduce doe tag prices further. It may help keep a tie between North Dakota and those who have left. Feel good is fine, as long as it doesn't further reduce opportunities for residents. If they are coming back to hunt with us that means no guides or leasing for them also. If they want a guide they are not coming back to hunt with family.

Maybe realistically this means I will never support it right?


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> Funny how true colors come out when its on the line


 Just wondering what that's about?
Because I am still a resident that sits in on the G&F meetings in Casselton, that shows his colors!



> Don't want to be the guy that rolls in around hunting season and puffs his chest out like a peacock when he opens his wallet then goes home and thinks my life sucks.


Funny...I didn't know that's what money does to people? :eyeroll:


----------



## strand (Sep 29, 2004)

I still feel there should be some advantages to bring former residents back into the state. I am in a very competitive field of Fish and Wildlife Biology and I wish to stay in North Dakota because I enjoy the atmosphere and I feel there is many more years of research to be done here. I currently am gaining job experience along with my schooling which will assist me in staying in ND but, there is a great chance that by the time i'm done with school there might not be a high demand for work, which will force me to move elsewhere. If I were going to school for the money I sure wouldn't choose biology, but I am absolutely intrigued by so many aspects of biology and wildlife that I know that is what i want to do.

I believe plainsman has come up with a good idea, just giving a certain percentage discount on licenses would be more than adequate in my opinion.

I enjoy reading the different insight though.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

Here is a scenario I have come up on......The guy I bought my boat from was afarmer by grafton for 30 years. For 30 years of his life he supported our state. He moved do to the fact he had to sell his land and farm. He ended up moving out of state. Not because he wanted to but he couldn't make it as a farmer. I got off the phone with him about a month ago( he had some more goodies for the boat), and he refuses to pay that much money to hunt land he used to own? He now sees it as the state turning his back on him after 30 years of his life? A 50 year old ex-northdakotan will not hunt our state because he is seen as a non-resident. He didn't move for $ or as Dosch would say "to open his wallet then goes home and thinks my life sucks." He couldn't make it here in the long run, and is also being punished for it?

When he get's himself going again, and saw that the state was willing to work with him do you think he might be more apt to coming back as soon as he can or should he feel forgotten? Remember he put in 30 years of his life working off the land we play on?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

12


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Mav 
Why does he feel he is being punished for it? is it because he thinks the state has no jobs for him or because he has to pay higher license fees and is restricted during waterfowl season.

I am in the same field as you will be when when you finish college, I decided a long time ago that there was a lot more to life than money. For me it is as simple as that.

Something has to be done, *this proposed bill is not it!* this smells like the good old boy network hard at work :-?

Bob


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

G/O i was not saying we denied him anything, I was saying that we made it harder for a 30 yr x-ND to hunt. He left because he couldn't make it here, not because he wanted to! So should we make it harder for him to hunt land he used to own? I know he doesn't own the land any more but would YOU PAY a ridiculous amount to hunt on land you previously owned? That's what I am saying!!!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

12


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> Why does he feel he is being punished for it?


Think about all the time he has spent on the land. All the sweat, tears, blood, and all other things that go along with being a farmer.



> is it because he thinks the state has no jobs for him or because he has to pay higher license fees and is restricted during waterfowl season.


In this situation, the farmer never graduated from college,and really has no formal schooling. So it wouldn't be about the waterfowl regs. More about being able to pay bills and eat?



> I decided a long time ago that there was a lot more to life than money.


Ok, don't take this the wrong way, but when I hear that as a response I can only think one has never known poverty?(Not trying to start something more)

True, there is more to life than money,but without it life is harder
From what I am reading here....If your not a Resident (even if you have been for 70 of your 100years of life) you should still not be entitiled to the same things as some one who just moved there, and has had their residency for only 2 years? To me this makes no sense?

And G/O I am not selling anything so that's why your not buying anything
Like I said earlier all I am trying to do is :stirpot: 
While debating things both sides need to be herd? Something productive can come from all this!!


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> Mav, If this person no longer owns the land there is not much we can do about it.


That's where your wrong, if this were to pass ( I am still not for or against it) he would still beable to hunt at a reasonable rate. With this bill it is helping. Not to get his land back but to make it easier for him to hunt (Financially).



> I can't believe he does not know some of the old neighbors that would let him hunt for free.


He is still paying the same amount for his liscense. With the amount of land being leased (which we all know is true) it is increasingly getting harder eavery day. True SOME people will let him hunt but not the people that bought his land


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

I will not go into it but trust me there have been times in the past when I wasn't sure where my next meal was going to come from.

This isn't about me I made my choice. It was a good one!!!

I can not buy the "cant afford to hunt " thing. If you want to hunt and you love the experience of hunting you will find a way to do it. Right?

We can throw scenarios around untill the end of time. The bottom line here is that there is a proposal out there that is going to go to the legislature in some form or another that will give Non-Residents, Resident hunting status because at some point in their life they were ND Residents.

*"If hunters come back and enjoy our resources, when the time comes, they will transfer back to live in the state." *

NR hunters can enjoy ND's natural resources now can't they? "When the time comes" retirement?

I have not been convinced that it is a good thing for Permanent ND residents and the states natural resources. *I can not support it!!!*

Bob


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Well here we go, it looks as if North Dakota hunting and its values are for sale. This idea is nuts! I'm amazed at how stupid some
people are here when it comes to solutions to such a problem. We have have heard the lame excuses suchas ND does not have a pro sports team or its to cold, give me a flippen break! Now this lame idea of how to buy a lifetime looser ticket that promotes the big land grab.

1) Fact people leave ND because they can earn 3 times as much and work half as hard.

2) We don't have true economic development in this state, what we really have is people benefiting from their position of power and those who are protecting their wealth thru the same system. Who has really benefitted?
Why is it ND still has more millionares per capita than any other state, yet most professions here are ranked 40th or lower, and continue to decline?

As this bill is set up now all it does is make it a good situation to leave. How did this guy get elected? Ok even good guys have bad ideas but what are these guys thinking? We as sportsman had better pay attention to the upcomming session wether we like polotics or not!

This bill might stand a chance of gaining my support if instead of a $500 fee it was $5000 and every cent of it went to the purchase, not lease, of land open to public hunting.

TC


----------



## Bushwacker (Mar 30, 2003)

Hey plainsman. How much do you want to further reduce the doe permits? They have already reduced them to only $50 each for the leftovers. Can't be very many other states that are that cheap. A lot of units had extra doe tags so I doubt too many nonresidents had to go without. It cost them more for gas to come here. I think the Senators idea would be very hard to work with. Sounds like a paperwork nightmare. You could have people stating that they attended schools that don't exist anymore. A lot of schools have closed around the state.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? We need to work on selling more cows and giving away less milk.

Quality hunting won't hold even close to a majority in state, but it does hold many thousands. This bill is just one more reason to be a visitor rather than a resident.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

NO!


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

"Membership (residency) has its priviledges." If you don't want to or can't be a club member then you have to pay the price.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Just a couple of quotes from this thread expressing concern that there should be some benefit to being a former resident of ND:



> From what I am reading here....If your not a Resident (even if you have been for 70 of your 100years of life) you should still not be entitiled to the same things as some one who just moved there, and has had their residency for only 2 years? To me this makes no sense?





> I still feel there should be some advantages to bring former residents back into the state.


There is a benefit of being a former resident: contacts with landowners. Again, there are two categories of residency: 1) Resident, and 2) Non-resident. According to this legislator, a non-resident really isn't a non-resident because they were born in ND or lived here awhile. Again, what about the person who grew up someplace else and moved to ND. Is he or she not truly a resident then?

The truth behind this bill will surface eventually. I would bet that some legislator or their constituent is ticked off because their non-resident kid has to buy a non-resident license when he comes home for the holidays.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

I absolutely don't agree with this "proposal". Sorry Tayler. I know that if you had a job here you would be all over this one too!! We cannot give away our hunting. There has to be some reason for people to stay here. Right now hunting and fishing is a big one and if we lose that advantage it will put us in the hurt bag. We need to find ways to keep guys like you in state so ou can help us win these battles and find ways to get higher paying jobs for your future colleagues and yourself!!!!


----------



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

Like it was said above. This plan doesn't seem to work AGAINST outmigration, but rather encourages it by allowing those who have outmigrated from the state to still receive some of the benefit given to those who choose to remain in ND.

Even if I left ND, I wouldn't expect to be treated "special" because I once lived here and gave up all that I had in terms of outdoor recreation. (Namely: Pheasant hunting and smallmouth on the Sheyenne)


----------



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

My story is the same as many others. I decided to stay in ND strictly for the outdoors (and family I guess) opportunities here. I applied for many many jobs in the state before I even got an interview. I get called by recruiters monthly offering me jobs in Minneapolis, Chicago, and Denver in my field.

I think the idea is interesting and I would vote for it with some other provisions added to it. I, like many of you, have friends and family that have moved for employment opportunities. They didn't move because they wanted to go to a BIG city, but because they couldn't find jobs. I have a couple of buddies that would have stayed if they could have found a job that was an 8-5, monday - friday type job that only payed in the low 20K range..........but they couldn't (before ING came to Minot). Now, they have excellent career paths that they would never have gotten before.

As I write this, I am once again reminded that this state is terrible at addressing the problems. We try to find a way to manage around the problem, but all that does is screw things up more!

We need a positive attitude about business, we need businessmen to give back to the community (that made them money) by raising wages a bit. We need to encourage innovation, we need to support business ideas, we need to watch and learn from other communites/states.

In my line of work I personally know many small business owners. They have made a fortune (ND standards) but they don't support economic development and they don't pay their employees what they are worth because most (not all) have the idea that everyone is expendable. Also, I used to like to have coffee with a certain group of people and all they did was complain about things or talk behind peoples back about their business ideas. We need to support one another! I'm sorry I went off on a tangent, but I needed to vent a bit!

Have a great day, now that I wrote one of the most depressing posts in Nodak History!


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Whenever I travel to other states to use there services there are no discounts. Sometimes I wonder if we are just too nice simply because we are from North Dakota and that is our style. Again, No!!


----------



## jamartinmg2 (Oct 7, 2004)

This is a tough one for me since I am a former resident. However, I feel that since I left the state I basically made my own bed.... now I have to sleep in it. I made the decision to leave, so the nonres rules apply. Case closed. Would I pay the $500 if the bill passed? Most likely as it is a pretty generous offer. I don't think this is going to help non residents, such as myself, come flocking back to the state. That seems a bit unrealistic to me.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I don't agree with this bill either.You leave...you are not a resident anymore.

The only thing is....if it were part of a cap bill,it would get more people in favor of it.They might be enough to get it through the legislature.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Hey Remmi ever think about polotics? I have found 95% of ND residesnts think like you stated in your last post but are to afraid to say anything. I couldn't agree with you anymore, it was great to here!
Remmi for Gov!!!

TC


----------



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

TC, I say this all the time......especially to my clients. It is amazing listening to them talk about how hard it is to find good employees that they can trust and yet they won't pay them what they are worth. Or they say their good employees have no loyalty because they leave for more money at the drop of a hat. So....my assistant and I have been working with our business owner clients on offering their employees some "golden-handcuff" type benefits. By this I mean, the business owner offers different investment(s) and/or insurance to people that are loyal employees. Some examples are college education savings plans (529 plans), cash-value life insurance policies (additional retirement funds), and various other ideas.

What these additional benefits have done is amazing. Many of them have basically tripled the amount of unsolicited resume's because people are hearing about the extra perks of being employed their. And these extra perks have a "catch", in that, they only receive them if they work their so long..........say 10, 15, or 20 years. You "vest" into the program each year of employment........much like a pension/retirement plan. The neat thing is that many of these things cost the business (owner) very little or nothing depending on what they do.......and they are eligible for tax breaks on much of it.

I know this is a very long dissertation, but I love our state and when I have kids I want them to be able to have a decent living in our state if they want. OK, time to step down from my soap box! If anyone has any opinions like mine or against mine, PM me so I don't go on wasting others time!


----------



## drjongy (Oct 13, 2003)

You're either a resident of the state or you're not...everyone has that choice. If you become a non-resident, then abide by non-resident limitations.


----------



## Draker16 (Nov 23, 2004)

I'm going to have to vote no on this one, we already have enough hunting pressure.


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

If that bill ever goes through I will be packing my bags that night (maybe not even that) and be gone before the morning sun. Taking with me my wife (who has a good job but could make far more elsewhere) and 2 kids. Ill throw a grand out the window as I pass Bismarck and not look back until next October. My wife has been on me to move for a while now, saying I could make so much more somewhere else. Up until now I have flat out refused to budge. With the passing of that bill I would have absolutely no reason to stay. As far as returning to the state later,WHATEVER, Ill be retiring to Montana, Where I for sure get a deer tag every year and can hunt a plethora of other big game. I mean why not I still get resident hunting rights here basically and can make a pile of cash somewhere else. Two of my married friends have expressed the same views. The total stats just with folks I know are: 6 college educated adults just entering our prime in earning potential and 9 children between the ages of 3 and 10 out of one school. The total on that is 15 residents gone, and thats just the people I know.

As far as for the state of North Dakota this bill is bad, and very stupid planning.


----------



## tumblebuck (Feb 17, 2004)

$500?? That's it? What a deal! I almost spend that much on ND licenses in a year! Heck...I will spend that much this year. No reason to move back if this goes through.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> The only thing is....if it were part of a cap bill,it would get more people in favor of it.They might be enough to get it through the legislature.


Now we are thinking!!!!! A way to influnece a CAP!!!! That's somethng we need, and if a bill like this helps bring foreward some changes then it is good for the state!!!

Ken's on the right track.....If we use it to help push a cap then how do you all see it?

And Remmi you couldn't have said any more to be more correct!!!


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

I only read the first post, briefly, here goes: i do not support this at all. this only encourages people to leave the state. our biggest problem is outmigration. i am currently attending ndsu and hoping to stay in nd because of the hunting/fishing and receiving the rights of a citizen of the state. bad bill.


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

I think that this is an issue of giving up sovereign rights to non-sovereign citizens. You are expected to pay taxes to recieve these sovereign rights. If you recieve a right such as this on a graduated fee scale, you should pay a tax on this right every year not unlike those that live here under its sovereign rule on the same graduated scale.

I think that these privileges (hunting and fishing) should be used more as a resource to attract and retain citizens directly, than to hope they come back. Because I love North Dakota but if I could be guaranteed the right to come back and be treated as a resident hunter without leaving here, isn't that less of a reason to stay? Why would it benefit the state if we attract people who are past their max earning years, tax and labor wise, instead of providing a better labor market to retain these young, talented individuals. I really don't think this is any kind of answer other than a copp out to improving the real issue...THE LABOR MARKET HERE IN NORTH DAKOTA.

If wedo that we have nothing to worry about as far as retaining the single most important resource that this place will ever have to offer. Its young people !!! Because if the pheasants die in a winter, the deer disease and the ducks and geese leave, we still have the single largest source of commerce, young and intelligent people raised with ethics and morals that have a strong work ethic. Name another state that could claim that !!!

I am 25 ... there a fewer and fewer of us left. What is goign to happen when we are nearly al gone, then will the State do something to spur growth?? 
I am very disappointed with the law makers of this state. They have failed to recognize probable solutions to this problem. We can not hope to re-attract people once they have put their feet down and started families. What % of a declining population do we really have a chance to bring back?

There needs to be fresh ideas and Out-of-the-Box thinkers in our State Offices, but unfortunately it is very populated with officials that enjoy the Status-Quo.


----------



## Dakota Kid (Aug 17, 2002)

I am former resident of ND who likes some version of a "favored son" bill, but for the right reasons. I posted the following points on duckhunter.net on 11/12/04.

1. "Favored sons" generally never use any guides, etc. We know where to go. If there is a HPC cap, than these favored son licenses should be subtracted from the total and small-game/ waterfowl only. No deer guarantee.

2. By granting a percentage to favored sons the pool of NR clients that may use a G/O decreases. Thus decreasing their ability to recruit clients because we are going to have a cap.

3. Takes a group of ND voters (people whose kids/relatives have left the state) that are on the side of G/O's (unrestricted licenses) and puts them on the side of residents, because they now have a vested, equal interest in preserving the quality of ND hunting.

4. These favored son licenses should be limited to the same number of days as any other NR licenses.

5. I think this would force the hand of several legislators to take a stand on the side of residents. IMHO there is a large constituency of ND voters that would support this because they have experienced a loved one that has moved away.

6. Last, this concept only works if there is a cap on NR waterfowl licenses.

f


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

A little debate and we have some sense coming out of it? Now I ask you guys again! If we use it to help a CAP how do you feel about it were a part HB2042? How many more people do you think would have supported the bill?


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Spin, Spin, Spin!!!!

Bottom line! I live here by choice, I pay taxes here, the vast majority of my income is spent in the state.

They decided to leave by choice, they pay little or no taxes here, they spend the vast majority of their income in their own Home state.

Now you would like to give them basically the same hunting priviledges as I have. I talked to two of my friends that live in Mpls area (former residents) they were laughing about it they think it is totally wrong. Both said get ND to offer jobs that pay well and they will be back without question.

You are either a Resident or A Non-Resident

Spin it however you want. Attach it or combine it with what ever bill you want it is still not going to change my mind and nothing posted so far has convinced me that it would be supportable.

Bob


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

The point is why would you give a right reserved for residents to non-residents. But further more, how do you think this will affect game management. You haave suddenly allowed thousands more hunters into the fields in uncontrolled numbers. It is a quagmire. You do not gain any advantage except non-residents that chose to leave are happy because they get special privileges. Sorry, but I plan on leaving and I can not say that it is too expensive for me to come back and hunt.

Heck, buy a 1/4 of land and get a gratis tag. Then you will be a non-resident paying land taxes.


----------



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

northdakotakid said:


> Heck, buy a 1/4 of land and get a gratis tag. Then you will be a non-resident paying land taxes.


I am not sure what a quarter of "deer" land sells for, but I think my guess of $300 is probably close?

$300/acre X 160 acres = $48,000


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

northdakotakid...you didn't quite read what he said.

There would not be thousands more hunters.The "favorte sons" licenses would be subtracted from the total allowed under the cap.In other words they would recieve preference for those tags over other non-res. before a lottery.Small game and waterfowl only.

I'm not saying I favor this...but it would be a way to get support for a cap form people who are PO'd because their kids couldn't come back and hunt.And I totally understand this....I would feel the same way if my Minn. Daughters wanted to come back and hunt.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

In my opinion it would be lost revenue for the GFD and I am not in favor of that so I will again vote no!


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

You guys are not seeing the big picture. If we can use this to help impose a CAP (which everyone here agrees we need) If we can get more people to acknoldge that we need a CAP, and now they find out there is some benefits surrounding a CAP then we might actually get the support we need to get one!



> You haave suddenly allowed thousands more hunters into the fields in uncontrolled numbers


No you really don't!!The pressure issue is already bad. If we work it with a CAP then we taking away the pressure issue! Because we now have a CAP!
And that's how it is helping game management


----------



## Dakota Kid (Aug 17, 2002)

Mav,

I'm glad you see the wisdom in letting "favored sons" in as a NR filler towards caps. I'm not saying that other NR's not from ND are bad folks but from a PR/strategy standpoint this goes a long ways towards limiting the pool of NR clients G/Os can draw from. Thats what my proposal is all about. It also makes parents feel better (not that thats the point) about their kids having some kind of guarantee that they can come back and hunt. Currently, this group of people is in the middle or more allied with the G/O standpoint of unlimited waterfowl licenses.

The $500 is a complete seperate deal to me but makes some sense towards a cap.

f


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

I don't know maybe I am old and set in my ways but I have learned along the way.

Here is an example and this is My family. My baby girl (she will always be) Graduated from college with multiple degrees, she had a little trouble finding a job and she moved to St. Louis. She found employment but realized her quality of life was not where she wanted it to be so she moved back to ND and started her own business, she is doing well. I will never forget the day I picked her up at the airport when she came back she told me she started crying when she saw the lights of Fargo from the air.

My Son went to college. He also graduated with several degrees and obtained his masters. he had no problem finding a job, he teaches Special Education.

Both are married and look forward to raising their children in North Dakota.

Am I wrong in thinking that the ones that leave take the easy way out? How many that have left ever considered starting a business in ND. If you think hunting will bring people back to the state, why didn't they come back already? This bills boils down to allowing some fat cats kid to hunt as a resident when he comes home to visit, and allows some of the kids that are "on the fence" an easy out.

Bob


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

I have a question then? How do we plan on getting a CAP inorder? The rescent bill was HB2048. HB2042 was a bill that all sportsman wanted to see implied! It had 100% backing from us, but it got shot down! WHY? WHY did that bill get shot down? From what I can think is that the whole population of ND wasn't going for it! No incentive for the common man in Minot/Beliefd/Nome/VC. Only the sportsman/animals benefit from it!
I beleive that if we work this into a cap MORE PEOPLE, not sportsman, will actually see the incentives of it! And we need more support from Billy in Bottineau, Karla in Kenmare, and Tommy in Towner.

Great Topic...let's keep it rolling......


----------



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

Bob, I agree with many (well... all in some aspect) points that you have made. The only argument is that I don't think all of those people are taking the easy way out by moving. My absolute best friend is a die hard hunter. He absolutely loves it and he comes back every fall to hunt with me for a week.

Now, this may be an exception....but he got several degrees (like your children) but he is a scientist. He is trying to find a cure for cancer and their isn't a lab in our state that does what he loves. Yes, he could change focuses and look at other things, but I'm damn happy (for personal reasons) that he is doing that.

Like I said, it is probably an exception, but then he deserves an exception IMO :beer:


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Mav

If I remember right HPC lost by one vote, Correct me if I am wrong. The biggest challenge that I see to getting passage of favored bills is to get the young people of the state involved in the process The 2005 Legislative Forum under hot topics had 2140 views and there was only 10 or so people that posted they were willing to be involved, when we really need 500 to show up for critical issues. Legislators are just like everyone else if they look out in a hearing room and see empty they think that Know one gives a damn and they are going to vote what they feel is correct. Believe me they will take notice if 500 show up. Piling a bunch od stuff into a popular bill only makes the bill more vulnerable IMO

Bob

Remmi Tell him about Roger Maris cancer center in Fargo, one of the best in the country


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

Not really sure whay HB2042 lost by myself? All I know is thait did lose? I do agree with 


> Legislators are just like everyone else if they look out in a hearing room and see empty they think that Know one gives a damn and they are going to vote what they feel is correct


of those 500 people, how many are you planning on being sportsman and how many are nonsportsman. What I am saying is that you get those 500 people there, not all of them are going to know the sportmans issues! Probabaly only about 30-40% really! If you get them interested in some areas where they see it as good for the land and still good for the family then we might get more sportsman or atleast open their eyes on the issues!


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

In a perfect scenario if it was a hunting related bill I would like to see 500 sportspersons show up. There are 4000 on this site 10,000 on another site, 100,000+ deer licenses sold, 40,000+/- waterfowl and upland licenses sold, a lot of fishing licenses sold. 500 is not a very big percentage of the total sportspersons in the state. What does it take to get the sportspersons of the state to get off the bench and into the game? The beauty of getting people involved is that they begin to feel like part of the process instead of just going their apathetic way. I was not a member here but I was at the "pheasantgate" meeting. Numbers make a difference.

Bob


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

When legilators hold meetings are they always just on one topic? NO. They usually have a agenda on what they want to talk about, and then get the random questions. No matter what is brought up at the meeting, there will always be people there to talk about something else. They usually have no idea what's going on witht these issues? What good is knowledge if we don't spread it?


> There are 4000 on this site 10,000 on another site, 100,000+ deer licenses sold, 40,000+/- waterfowl and upland licenses sold, a lot of fishing licenses sold


A 100,000 deer liscense? How many 2nd 3rd and 4th tags is that for one person? Of those 40,000 waterfowl/upland liscenses how many of them sent in for the deer tags? Probably 90%

If bring 500 people to a meeting I will gaurantee you that not all 500 are sportsman!


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

Well with that, I will leave with this!!!!

Happy Thanksgiving to everyone!!!
I am leaving for the weekend!!!


----------



## Dakota Kid (Aug 17, 2002)

Bob,

Its allright to be old-fashioned but I think we are looking at this issue from different angles. Throw out the $500 lifetime license fee mentioned earlier. What I am talking about is a cap with a built-in % for favored sons. We are using these people as a tool against the G/O client pool in an attempt to shrink it.

Scenario: Lets say we institute a cap for example of 10,000 (highly unlikely)

This pleases the 214 residents who actually care about this issue,(though I am convinced that the majority of ND sportsmen are completely ambivalent to this whole issue).

However, this torks off the many, many parents and relatives who have friends and relatives left the state. I would call many of these folks "part-time" or supporters of hunting. They might get out 1-2 times per year when their kid is home. Otherwise they may not hunt at all. I know many folks like this and they respresent the vast untapped middle on this issue.

From an issue-standpoint this aligns them with G/O's who also adamantly oppose a cap. They will both sit on the same side of the room.

We now say 25% or 2500 of those NR (waterfowl licenses) are reserved for sportsmen who can prove they graduated from H.S. in ND. These are first-come first serve for waterfowl only. I don't see the need for a cap for upland licenses and is politically impossible anyways. The rest is for non-ND-nr's.

They (resident parents and resident sportsmen) now are natural allies with with a vested interest in a quality hunting experience for all. The reality is many parents still harbor the belief that their kids will move back to ND to raise families. Mine and my wifes are just two examples of this. Hunting brings them home to spend time.

Lastly, I would not fill any hearing room on this issue with resident sportsmen. IMHO, I think the resident sportsmen of ND have been marginalized by extremists on both sides. Many legislators are not sold on your cause but are receptive to concerned parents/relatives who feel their "native son" is being locked out. I would fill the hearing room with 500 parents, relatives and friends of NR's who might hunt once a year when skippy is home. These people represent the vast, untapped middle on this issue and their numbers are huge and they are passionate about this. Swing them to the side of the resident sportsmen and you have a chance to win this battle.

Remember the battle is against the G/O's.

Frankie


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> What good is knowledge if we don't spread it?


So spread it. No one else will write that letter.
http://newslink.org/ndnews.html

We got beat on 2048 because:
G/Os are organized and co-operate. We do not.
G/Os poured money into the effort. We do not.
G/Os did their political homework. We do not.
G/Os mounted a great press campaign. We did not.

Before the '03 session, the ETREE asked for an organizer in each legislative district. 2 people said yes. Just 2.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> No one else will write that letter.


Kind of wondering what letter that is?


----------



## Dakota Kid (Aug 17, 2002)

Dick,

Your points are spot on. If there is one thing, I have noticed and you and I have talked about this is there is no one single faction to unite behind in thiscampaign against G/O's. Everyone has their one single-issue campaign and that is why freelancers lose.

The G/O's will kick *** again this session because the sportsmen in ND are too apathetic to organize anything more than a bonfire.

The folks on this and other forums who think they can win this fight alone agianst the G/O's are naive. You resident sportsmen need the NR freelancer on your side and the non-hunter relatives of NR's I talked about above. Maybe then you'll have a chance.

f


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Dakota Kid
Sooooo your saying that if we let daddy got rocks help to push a bill through so skippy can go hunting when he is home from college that the cap and the end result will damage the o/g business?

First you are making an assumption that daddy got rocks and skippy are the only ones using O/G services, sorry but I can not buy that one. If there is statistics on this I for one would love to get my hands on them. A straight cap would or should I say could possibly lead to over population of certain species beyond managable levels, example Elk in TRNP Whitetail Deer etc.. There are plenty of O/G's on this site to answer the question if they would.

IMHO the only "cap" that is even plausable at this point is to push *HARD* for HPC. It is the only logical concept that I have studied that bases hunting licenses and the number of R/NR licenses on the available resources.

O/G businesses are going to be part of North Dakota Like it or not. they have their own little section in the North Dakota Century Code. It would/will be difficult if not impossible to strike these laws now that they are on the books. The only thing that can be done is to push for further regulation of soft outfitting and leasing of habitat, and possibly making it mandatory for an O/G business to actually own and enhance the habitat of their land.

The post that Dick made lists a web link to all newspapers in the state, I have used it and many have printed letters that I have written. and If anyone knows about the critical issues that face us it would be Dick.

North Dakota needs a state wide sportspersons organization be it a PAC or a group that would be devoted to outdoor/sportsperson issues. I have discussed this with several people and all agree it is needed, however, take the two largest cities in North Dakota, Fargo and Bismarck. This fall when the legislators and sportspersons were invited to a QA session to discuss future legislation, only a dozen or so of us showed up to visit with and interact with the legislators, guess what the legislators think that there are a few "loud mouths" (me) out there and the majority don't give a ****. Now if you think daddy got rocks and skippy would have shown up to help, maybe if it in some way would benefit them. What about a bill or hearing that they would not reap rewards? We need sportspersons that will support North Dakota outdoors and resources, benefit to them or not!

North Dakota probably should give the native sons a break, why not offer reduced rate 3 day licenses for skippy when he comes to visit or is home from school?

Happy Thanksgiving

Bob


----------



## Dakota Kid (Aug 17, 2002)

> First you are making an assumption that daddy got rocks and skippy are the only ones using O/G services


Bob,

Not at all am I saying that. Quite the contrary, IMO, these are the kind of NR clients that won't use the services of a G/O. They are from ND and more than likely have connections or places to hunt.

What I am saying is that if HPC is approved (and that is what I mean by a cap) lets reserve 25% for native sons. So instead of 10,000 NR's being potential clients to G/Os you now have 7500. In a nutshell, native sons don't help G/O's and are the kind of NR that residents should want on their side. We are essentially filling part of the cap with potential non-clients as opposed to the alternative.

As I mentioned in my earlier posts, I am talking about waterfowl only. Its foolish to think otherwise.

As for a group, pac, etc for sportsmen. Good luck, Dick and I have visited about this and clearly you need to find a way to combine the factions of the Federation, the Alliance, the Nodakers and the rest of the folks who feel something needs to be done. As of now, the session is a little over a month away and there is no obvious organization or agenda. 
Maybe there is but if it doesn't involve freelance nr's, and the vast middle in ND (that could care less) who doesn't want their sons potential trip severly restricted by zones or other restrictions, you will more than likely be staring at an empty glass again come end of session.

Your idea about giving Skippy a reduced rate is great. Better yet, what about giving Skippy 12 days total instead of 10 (on upland) and then giving him the ability to break it up into 4-3 day weekends?

Have a great one!

f


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

12


----------



## Dakota Kid (Aug 17, 2002)

G/O,

Go back and read my posts and find where I "attacked" anyone.

Also go back and read where I say the following above:



> Quite the contrary, IMO, these are the kind of NR clients that won't use the services of a G/O. They are from ND and more than likely have connections or places to hunt.


You posted:


> I have been in this buisness for over 10 years and have yet to have a former resident at my place. Most former residents have family and freinds that they know and have places for them to hunt.


You just repeated what I said. So what is your point? If ND limits (caps), the number of NR's and incorporates a "favored son" percentage of licenses as part of the nr total we have just reduced the pool of potential clients for g/o's. Correct? Basically we are filling part of the glass with potential non-clients, thus inhibiting the growth of the g/o industry.

I am in complete agreement on Wisconsin tragedy, and NR small town economic impact. However, my desire for a HPC type cap is resource based. We are shooting alot of ducks in ND. We do not know the impact that this has on breeding populations, etc. Delta waterfowl will be studying hunter pressure and its effect on migrations, etc in the coming years. We do not know the long-term cause and effect this has on ducks.

And please quit being so sensitive :lol:

f


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

12


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

g/o

We have had our disagreements, again I beg to differ on just creating more waterfowl rest areas.

Do not misunderstand me the need for more rest areas is one of the keys to proper waterfowl management IMO but to increase the rest areas and put no restrictions on the leasing of the habitat surrounding the rest area defeates the purpose. I would like to see no leasing at all and a 1/2 mile no hunting radius for the rest areas. Just my two cents.

I also feel HPC should be applied to all ND wildlife, and I think that O/G's should not be just given x number of licenses, it should be based on HPC and the available resource with a limit per outfitter based on the O/G operations in the area, this probably has the same chance as a snowball in hell but I feel it is a valid idea.

I could not agree more that we all need to cooperate to get what needs to be done, done!

Problem is that certain leaders in your ranks always like to talk compromise, then when the time comes compromise is suddenly gone.
How would you propose to change that?

I know for a fact that compromise on our side is going to be hard to come by this session, and I have a feeling this is going to be a make or break session for Freelance Hunting.

Although I do not agree with this proposed legislation (I just feel there is more here than meets the eye) I do agree that we need to find a way to include this native son group, if and only if they have imediate family that are permanent North Dakota Residents. None of this graduated from High School and 5 years of grade school crap unless the have parents or siblings that still reside here.

How hard would it be to get a face to face meeting with some of you and your leadership, some of us and some of the native sons together in the near future?? I proposed this when I first became a member here and quite a few thought I was nuts! maybe I am but I am also an eternal optomist, I have been up against impossible odds in my life more than once, I have a strong will and a big mouth, but you can ask anyone that knows me well and they will tell you that I am fair.

We still need to have that cup of coffee some day!

Hope Thanksgiving for all of your families was as special as it was with mine. Memories!!

Bob


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

12


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

g/o

Yes there are some really stubborn people om my side also You will get no disagreement from me on that topic. Dialog has to start somewhere though. I want to give it a shot, maybe it will result in nothing but how will anyone know until we try?

Friday and Saturday is things that go quack in the morning and ditch chickens in the afternoon, Sunday is wide open! if you got the time, I will make time!

Bob


----------



## deacon (Sep 12, 2003)

As a former resident and now a NR, this is a joke. You either live in the state or you don't.


----------



## headhunter (Oct 10, 2002)

stupid idea.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

headhunter Posted: 28 Nov 2004 08:29 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

stupid idea.

deacon Posted: 26 Nov 2004 16:48 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a former resident and now a NR, this is a joke. You either live in the state or you don't.

Good debateable resaons!!!! :eyeroll: 
Thanks for the informative words!!! :eyeroll:


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

On the deer licenses. When Every Resident that wants a Buck Tag, gets a buck tag, then we'll agree to give more NR licenses. I sure hope the guys behind the scenes are not remotely considering this as part of a compromise.


----------



## Brad Hanson (Nov 13, 2004)

I will weight in on this subject with some reservations and much hesitation. I grew up in MN but after school lived in ND for ten years, I then for a job moved to Mpls. I have since moved back to the area to work for with my father and his ND based company. I will admit I dont live in ND for the only reason I found the home and land I never thought I could and by chance its in MN. When I moved from ND I knew that I then lost my status and rights to hunt as a resident. When I moved back I really looked for homes in ND before I stumbled onto our current home. My point is the resident hunting privledges did entice me to consider ND but in the end it was not the key factor for me moving back or not. The same will apply to jobs and other growth opportunities for others. I would be against the proposal with this caviate, dont make your non resident laws so restrictive that we cannot enjoy some hunting with friends and family. I realize the cost and restrictions and am willing to pay for the priviledge to hunt in ND. Because my father is a ND resident he pays NR license fees in MN, eventhough my father hunts his own land in MN and pays land taxes in MN. I dont hear him pattitioning the MN DNR for special favors.... granted he doesnt like to pay the high fees but he also relizes that he enjoys many benifits for being a ND resident and gave up the MN benifits when he moved. I may be wrong but the proposal sounds like someone wants to divorce their wife but still come back for bed benifits without a new wedding.


----------



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

Brad Hanson said:


> I may be wrong but the proposal sounds like someone wants to divorce their wife but still come back for bed benifits without a new wedding.


I don't think it could have been put any better!


----------



## goose1965 (Sep 3, 2004)

I personally don't agree with this proposed bill. I feel sorry for the younger generation choosing to move out of this great state for big bucks.
I have two kids that will live forever here and two that chose to live in MN. When they come here, they know that there is a price to pay. My one son living here, gave up a position as a union millwright just live here.
I gave up a company car, decent salary, and a nice 401k to live here. I now work two part-time jobs and am currently working on starting my own business. My husband (leadshot) gave up some extremely nice pay and steady work just to live here.

You either love this state and the values it stands for or you choose greener pastures.

My children that live in MN yet, can't really say that it's a good life.

So good luck to you future grads and make sure it's really what you want.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

A couple of really good summaries/analogies (Brad and goose). Goose, sometimes one has to actually spend some time in the other pasture to understand the grass isn't any greener and what's most important. Sometimes time spent in the other pasture is the only thing that gives one the background, means and perspective to be comfortable and confident in the first pasture. I can relate very personally with your account. I just hope ND doesn't let slip away one of the primary reasons I sauntered back to the ND pasture.


----------

