# Forum Editorial



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Forum editorial: Hunting restrictions hurt state
The Forum
Published Friday, February 25, 2005
As predicted a couple of years ago, the attempt by some North Dakotans to make it tougher for nonresidents to hunt in the state is having consequences. In addition to a federal lawsuit brought by Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch, lawmakers in St. Paul are dealing with at least one proposal that would retaliate against North Dakotans who cross the border to fish in Minnesota lakes country.

It need not have happened. It would not have happened if North Dakota lawmakers had had the good sense to reject unnecessary restrictions on non-resident hunters. Instead, the 2003 Legislature made what appeared to be minor adjustments in non-resident regulations. They were not minor in application. The changes included an early season for some game species for resident hunters and a specific waterfowl zone change that was imposed to appease a vocal and misguided hunters' organization in the Jamestown area.

And also as predicted, North Dakota's small towns that depend on out-of-state hunters experienced a decline in business activity after the new regulations went into effect.

Furthermore, the wrong message is being sent all over the country to one of the most important segments of the state's tourism industry: hunters and others who want to visit the state because of the incomparable outdoor experience. Instead of welcoming them - to enjoy North Dakota's natural amenities and spend a few dollars - myopic regulations are telling them they are not wanted.

Among proposals that have been kicked around the Legislature the last few sessions is a protocol loosely described as the "hunter pressure concept." Based in game management science, the idea is to balance the number of hunters in the field with game populations in order to ensure a good hunting experience while protecting game populations from over hunting. It's a sensible management tool, unless the science is undermined by the provincialism of selfish "sportsmen's" groups and their allies in the Legislature.

Meanwhile, North Dakota should be about the business of welcoming non-resident hunters and their families to the state. The hunter who has a good experience in pheasant or waterfowl country goes home to Indiana, New Hampshire, Illinois, etc., and becomes a goodwill ambassador for North Dakota. But make him feel unwelcome, and he is converted into a cynic about North Dakota's phony hospitality. And he's right to feel that way.

Forum editorials represent the opinion of Forum


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

Just to clarify for you NRs reading this and also the in-forum I guess. *Not all of us poor downtroden "country folk" like you or even want you here in the littlest bit!* We tolerated you for the most part until you decided to try and run our state, but now you have gone to far.


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

jdpete75,

What in the world are you trying to say?

You must work for the ND tourism industry!


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

Im saying that alot of us are sick and tired of NRs coming here under the guise that they are our "saviors". Then when we try to regulate our own state they tell us we will dry up and be destitute without thier money. To top it all off they cant just abide by the rules, they bring forward a lawsuit to tell US what THEY should be able to do in OUR state. The BS line that minnesotites dont support the lawsuit doesnt hold water anymore either. If there was so much "opposition" the suit would have been dropped long ago.


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

Please remember that THEY don't speak for all residents of MN.
All the lawsuit will do is cost money, that could be better spent
on habitat, for both MN and ND. Like it or not, many on this 
website fight for a common cause, loss of land to hunt. Where
will it stop, beyond me for the answer. All I do know, fighting
one another is a waste of energy, and unfortunely, a LOSS of
time. We can always gain our energy back, but time...........?


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

jdpete75,

Fanning the flames won't get any of us anywhere. I think most hunters, both resident and non-resident, are concerned about the quality of hunting. We can approach it from that angle without alienating everyone (well, everyone but the big guides and outfitters). I know where you are coming from, but there are better ways to solve the problem than antagonizing people. If we all work together, we can still maintain the quality of ND hunting and share it with others. That's where I'm coming from.


----------



## Acemallard (Sep 30, 2003)

Ya know I dont have a problem with NRs comming to ND. But you go and let everyone and anyone into the state and it will hurt hunting ie. more pressure birds leave sooner. We all need to work together to find common ground on this but there has to be some kind of line drawn or the stae will get overrun with NRs hunters looking to hunt in GODs country. Like I said I am not againts NRs comming to ND but there has to be a limit. As far as MN goes in saying raise the fishing license let em. The only thing they are gonna do is hurt themselfs when we start fishing over in ND and selling our lake places. As far as I am concerned the fishing in ND is better anyway the only reason I go to MN is my family has owned a lake place there for 34 years. Unless the price gets way outrages I will continue to buy a NR from MN to fish. Lets just stop the bickering and fight the real fight GUIDES.

HARDCORE WATERFOWLER


----------



## jamartinmg2 (Oct 7, 2004)

jdpete75 said:


> Just to clarify for you NRs reading this and also the in-forum I guess. *Not all of us poor downtroden "country folk" like you or even want you here in the littlest bit!* We tolerated you for the most part until you decided to try and run our state, but now you have gone to far.


JD..... As a former resident and current NR keep in mind that all of us NR don't agree with the philosophy of the author of this letter. I have no problem with the additional restrictions imposed on us in the last couple of years. I happen to believe that the restrictions will only help keep ND a place where both residents and non-residents alike can hunt well into the future. Of course there are many more pieces to the puzzle..... habitat management, commercialized hunting and outfitting, etc.. that will play into that too. I digress, though..... I ask that you don't lump all of us NR's in with the guy who wrote the letter, is all.


----------



## jamartinmg2 (Oct 7, 2004)

jdpete75 said:


> Im saying that alot of us are sick and tired of NRs coming here under the guise that they are our "saviors". Then when we try to regulate our own state they tell us we will dry up and be destitute without thier money. To top it all off they cant just abide by the rules, they bring forward a lawsuit to tell US what THEY should be able to do in OUR state. The BS line that minnesotites dont support the lawsuit doesnt hold water anymore either. If there was so much "opposition" the suit would have been dropped long ago.


I'll tell you what..... I have said it on this forum and I'll say it again. If you disagree with this lawsuit and you are from MN, I urge you to contact Mike Hatch and Tim Pawlently. I have emailed Hatch a couple of times on this and have not even gotten a response back. Email and call these guys. Hatch is looking to be the next governor of this state, so if he feels that public opinion is turning on this issue, I bet he drops the lawsuit in a minute. Mike is out to make Mike look good, period.


----------



## Rosendal (Jul 18, 2004)

Let's not let the tourism virus infect and spoil the prairies of ND they way it did to MN lake country. There IS more to life than revenue.


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

Controlled growth, that is the issue that no one is saying. You can not increase the growth of any entity without some impact on present resources. But also you can not restrict growth to the point of stopping progress.

The problem here lies in *"a few trying to speak for many."* If I was an NR hunter I would do some deep thinkning about why I would not react to the"few speaking for many." Myself as a resident have thought very deeply about haveing the"few speak for many" about whether NR are good for North Dakota.

Thre truth of the matter is that there is no doubt that demand for areas like North Dakota in the present will continue to rise at a very alarming rate. This necesitates some regulation and projection to the impact both positively(revenues) and negatively(e.g. presured birds leaving early). I think that is the largest problem we are focusing on the symptoms not the true cause of the problem.

I myself think it must be very insulting for NR to have "few speaking for many" because I find it vert insulting to have the few who fail to see how eco-tourism activities(hunting, fishing, hiking) will have a dramatic impact on how we as North Dakotan's live. We should embrace it, because there are a limited number of other economic stimulating resources that have the potential to both preserve the land in this state and our way of life. The sooner we realize this the less ammends we will have to make with the people that will inheritly help us save our state and also allow us to have greater control of the growth without paralyzing it by our own spite and pride. We are a proud people and that pride should be used to ensure that our outdoor traditions are preserved and passed on in a fashion that is consistent with our values that were given to us by our parents, grandparents and many others.

But I guess we can fight this battle for as long as we want until both sides realize that it is being driven by "the few" and that many will follow "the few" until they realize that what we share in common may not be the place we call home but our passion for the sports and lifestyles we pursue. This common bond as outdoorsmen(women) and the appreciation for the land should be the driving force for us to come together and discuss a plan that would give a common understanding of how to share and enjoy these resources. It is not a place for corporations, lawyers and litigation. It is a place for respect on both parties.
R-E-S-P-E-C-T, from both parties as outdooramn(women).

Just my :2cents:


----------

