Joined
·
2,941 Posts
Establishing zones not good for landowners
Violet Peda Woodworth, N.D.
Regarding the new waterfowl hunting zones:
Gov. John Hoeven said, "North Dakota Game and Fish has worked very hard to put together a balanced program. They had 13 meetings around the state to take information and communicate." None of these meetings were held in the affected area. The one in Jamestown was in new zone 3. No one on the North Dakota Fish and Game Advisory Board was from the affected area.
The governor also said "Make sure you are being fair to all concerned, communicate and build the resource." Resident hunters will realize this fall that "free hunting" in the coveted area - zones 1 and 2 - will be hard to come by. Since this area is "overcrowded," many landowners will relieve this "overcrowding" by not allowing "free hunting" to anyone, for any game. Landowners will continue to be out-voted in all areas but one: land access.
Of course the rest of the state is satisfied. They are not affected by restrictions.
When I asked Dean Hildebrandt, "Why this area?" He said, "Because it is the best hunting in the state." Could it also be, because the Sportsmen's Alliance is headquartered in Zone 1 and that it is most convenient for Fargo and Grand Forks hunting?
What is the good in all of this for for landowners in zones 1 and 2? Top-notch advertising as to where the best hunting in the state is. Wealthy hunters, many North Dakota residents will pay to hunt the best. They will not share it with poorer hunters.
People buy land for only two reasons: to make money, farmers and investors; or for pleasure, such as hunting. Recreation buyers keep it all for themselves. Whoever heard of an individual buying land for public hunting?
The North Dakota Fish and Game officials say they cannot control wildlife without land access. The available food and shelter controls wildlife much more effectively. Game and Fish can only control hunters to make sure game is not over hunted. When landowners greatly restrict resident hunters from access to their land in zones 1 and 2, as a backlash of this newest proposal, it will not matter much as far as control of wildlife is concerned. Farmers have harvested their crops, long before hunting season opens, and if they have not fenced their hay supplies they soon will. The waterfowl will be shot in the states to the south, who will also get their money, and the deer will die off also, either from disease or starvation. Nonresident paying hunters would be glad to control them in zones 1 and 2.
Hunting will never again be as it used to be. Open hunting on private land is the main reason many resident hunters are living in North Dakota, and that this must be preserved for future free hunting is only dreaming. Resident hunters do not want to lose this as other states have. They lost it more than three years ago.
All wildlife belongs to everyone, therefore licensed hunters have the right to hunt where they wish. Why does the wildlife belong to a hunter who happens to see it more than the landowner on whose land it is residing, or the other half million people in the state, who may not want it killed? Other property owners do not have to put up signs to keep people off, or out of. Why should land be any different?
There is now two upcoming court cases that may very well greatly change hunting in North Dakota. It is anti-constitutional to discriminate between resident and nonresident hunters, going to the Supreme Court, and the no trespassing law in North Dakota.
This may very well end the controversy.
Taken from The Jamestown Sun.
Violet Peda Woodworth, N.D.
Regarding the new waterfowl hunting zones:
Gov. John Hoeven said, "North Dakota Game and Fish has worked very hard to put together a balanced program. They had 13 meetings around the state to take information and communicate." None of these meetings were held in the affected area. The one in Jamestown was in new zone 3. No one on the North Dakota Fish and Game Advisory Board was from the affected area.
The governor also said "Make sure you are being fair to all concerned, communicate and build the resource." Resident hunters will realize this fall that "free hunting" in the coveted area - zones 1 and 2 - will be hard to come by. Since this area is "overcrowded," many landowners will relieve this "overcrowding" by not allowing "free hunting" to anyone, for any game. Landowners will continue to be out-voted in all areas but one: land access.
Of course the rest of the state is satisfied. They are not affected by restrictions.
When I asked Dean Hildebrandt, "Why this area?" He said, "Because it is the best hunting in the state." Could it also be, because the Sportsmen's Alliance is headquartered in Zone 1 and that it is most convenient for Fargo and Grand Forks hunting?
What is the good in all of this for for landowners in zones 1 and 2? Top-notch advertising as to where the best hunting in the state is. Wealthy hunters, many North Dakota residents will pay to hunt the best. They will not share it with poorer hunters.
People buy land for only two reasons: to make money, farmers and investors; or for pleasure, such as hunting. Recreation buyers keep it all for themselves. Whoever heard of an individual buying land for public hunting?
The North Dakota Fish and Game officials say they cannot control wildlife without land access. The available food and shelter controls wildlife much more effectively. Game and Fish can only control hunters to make sure game is not over hunted. When landowners greatly restrict resident hunters from access to their land in zones 1 and 2, as a backlash of this newest proposal, it will not matter much as far as control of wildlife is concerned. Farmers have harvested their crops, long before hunting season opens, and if they have not fenced their hay supplies they soon will. The waterfowl will be shot in the states to the south, who will also get their money, and the deer will die off also, either from disease or starvation. Nonresident paying hunters would be glad to control them in zones 1 and 2.
Hunting will never again be as it used to be. Open hunting on private land is the main reason many resident hunters are living in North Dakota, and that this must be preserved for future free hunting is only dreaming. Resident hunters do not want to lose this as other states have. They lost it more than three years ago.
All wildlife belongs to everyone, therefore licensed hunters have the right to hunt where they wish. Why does the wildlife belong to a hunter who happens to see it more than the landowner on whose land it is residing, or the other half million people in the state, who may not want it killed? Other property owners do not have to put up signs to keep people off, or out of. Why should land be any different?
There is now two upcoming court cases that may very well greatly change hunting in North Dakota. It is anti-constitutional to discriminate between resident and nonresident hunters, going to the Supreme Court, and the no trespassing law in North Dakota.
This may very well end the controversy.
Taken from The Jamestown Sun.
