2048 may die then what

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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.