I am not a "sportsman" (hunter) or landowner. I live in Dickinson so I am familiar with the views of many (not all) who are landowners in this part of the state and I feel compelled to explain some things.
The fact is, fee hunting is here and it will be hard to uproot. Complaining about it and other access problems (CRP, Posting, etc.) only alienates these landowners and makes it less likely that they will allow people to hunt on their land.
It boils down to this: "What are sportsmen willing to give to the landowner?" To listen to some radio call-in shows it would appear that the answer is "nothing." I don't think this is a reasonable cross-section of the sportsmen of North Dakota. But the fact remains, fee hunting gives the land-owner something for having people on his land.
Every land-owner I have ever talked to has shared stories of awful experiences with "sportsmen" (or at least those who use the title). They tell of times when litter (beer cans, potato chip bags, etc.) are left in their fields, gates are left open, and new roads appear in the middle of fields and pastures, and even acts of vandalism ("No Hunting" signs are shot at--if the hunter does not see a bright orange sign, I don't know if I want a gun in his hand). With fee hunting, the landowner is at least compensated and has some say in who hunts their land and for how long.
I have even talked to some landowners in the Cannonball Company who allow some people to hunt on their land--prime land--at little or no cost. What are they doing that people with trouble getting access are doing, it is simple, they give something back. Maybe they are willing to help out on the farm/ranch during the summer, maybe they are flexible and willing to come at the end of the season; or at mid week, not the weekend. My point is not that these will guarantee you access (I am not the owner) but that offers like this go over better than showing up opening day and standing in line to ask permission to hunt.
As for CRP land, I don't know of any court decision that has said that it should/is public land for hunting. The purpose of this federal program was to give farmers incentive to take land ("highly-erodable") out of production. It has several benefits such as providing habitat for wildlife (not necessarily to be hunted on that land), soil conservation, and also decreasing the number of bushels of surplus grain. The landowner still has responsibilities to maintain that land such as ridding it of noxious weeds, and the payments are not very large per acre compared to the fact that the farmer is not gaining income from the land and it does have some nominal costs (ie chemical sprays). If "sportsmen" are correct and this is public land, then the best thing to do is go to court and make your case so at least you have legal ground to stand on when stating that it is public land.
Also, keep in mind the economic impact of a fee hunting organization. Again I will use the Cannonball Company as an organization familiar to many people. According to a Bismarck Tribune article last May 20 the Company brought in close to $300,000. That means that it is an industry that brings in almost $1000 per person in the town. That would be the proportionally equivalent of a Bismarck/Mandan industry bringing in over $50 million. What area wouldn't love to have that kind of influx of money.
My point is that I understand the frustration felt by good sportsmen about their inability to gain access to the best land. These are valid complaints. However, all that is currently being done is battle lines are being drawn by sportsmen who want to be able to do whatever they want and wherever they want. These bad apples are ruining it for everyone. While most landowners are pleased with the influx of money, their main benefit from fee hunting is that it shows the value of their land (not great farmland in many cases) and eliminates the trouble of an endless line of hunters in the first couple of weeks of the season.
From someone who lives in SW ND and works with landowners frequently, the best strategy for sportsmen at this time is to:
1. Contact the landowner early, in February and March if possible. Not on opening day!!!
2. Be prepared to offer something. Maybe time in the summer away from pheasant season, maybe a share in the kill, service that you alone are qualified to offer...something other than the honor of having you hunt on their land.
3. Try to forge a relationship. Send a christmas card or a box of chocolates at New Years. Something to indicate that you value them for more than the land.
4. And I know the "good hunters" already know this, but "no means no." The landowner does not have to justify keeping his land empty. Maybe he wants to hunt. Maybe he has promised it to family/friends. Do not go onto their land despite their objection. Actions like these are what brought on the access problem.
The fact is, fee hunting is here and it will be hard to uproot. Complaining about it and other access problems (CRP, Posting, etc.) only alienates these landowners and makes it less likely that they will allow people to hunt on their land.
It boils down to this: "What are sportsmen willing to give to the landowner?" To listen to some radio call-in shows it would appear that the answer is "nothing." I don't think this is a reasonable cross-section of the sportsmen of North Dakota. But the fact remains, fee hunting gives the land-owner something for having people on his land.
Every land-owner I have ever talked to has shared stories of awful experiences with "sportsmen" (or at least those who use the title). They tell of times when litter (beer cans, potato chip bags, etc.) are left in their fields, gates are left open, and new roads appear in the middle of fields and pastures, and even acts of vandalism ("No Hunting" signs are shot at--if the hunter does not see a bright orange sign, I don't know if I want a gun in his hand). With fee hunting, the landowner is at least compensated and has some say in who hunts their land and for how long.
I have even talked to some landowners in the Cannonball Company who allow some people to hunt on their land--prime land--at little or no cost. What are they doing that people with trouble getting access are doing, it is simple, they give something back. Maybe they are willing to help out on the farm/ranch during the summer, maybe they are flexible and willing to come at the end of the season; or at mid week, not the weekend. My point is not that these will guarantee you access (I am not the owner) but that offers like this go over better than showing up opening day and standing in line to ask permission to hunt.
As for CRP land, I don't know of any court decision that has said that it should/is public land for hunting. The purpose of this federal program was to give farmers incentive to take land ("highly-erodable") out of production. It has several benefits such as providing habitat for wildlife (not necessarily to be hunted on that land), soil conservation, and also decreasing the number of bushels of surplus grain. The landowner still has responsibilities to maintain that land such as ridding it of noxious weeds, and the payments are not very large per acre compared to the fact that the farmer is not gaining income from the land and it does have some nominal costs (ie chemical sprays). If "sportsmen" are correct and this is public land, then the best thing to do is go to court and make your case so at least you have legal ground to stand on when stating that it is public land.
Also, keep in mind the economic impact of a fee hunting organization. Again I will use the Cannonball Company as an organization familiar to many people. According to a Bismarck Tribune article last May 20 the Company brought in close to $300,000. That means that it is an industry that brings in almost $1000 per person in the town. That would be the proportionally equivalent of a Bismarck/Mandan industry bringing in over $50 million. What area wouldn't love to have that kind of influx of money.
My point is that I understand the frustration felt by good sportsmen about their inability to gain access to the best land. These are valid complaints. However, all that is currently being done is battle lines are being drawn by sportsmen who want to be able to do whatever they want and wherever they want. These bad apples are ruining it for everyone. While most landowners are pleased with the influx of money, their main benefit from fee hunting is that it shows the value of their land (not great farmland in many cases) and eliminates the trouble of an endless line of hunters in the first couple of weeks of the season.
From someone who lives in SW ND and works with landowners frequently, the best strategy for sportsmen at this time is to:
1. Contact the landowner early, in February and March if possible. Not on opening day!!!
2. Be prepared to offer something. Maybe time in the summer away from pheasant season, maybe a share in the kill, service that you alone are qualified to offer...something other than the honor of having you hunt on their land.
3. Try to forge a relationship. Send a christmas card or a box of chocolates at New Years. Something to indicate that you value them for more than the land.
4. And I know the "good hunters" already know this, but "no means no." The landowner does not have to justify keeping his land empty. Maybe he wants to hunt. Maybe he has promised it to family/friends. Do not go onto their land despite their objection. Actions like these are what brought on the access problem.
