[prairie hunter]

I just returned home from a week plus vacation to see the new Pheasants Forever magazine in the mail box.

In the back add section of the magazine there is a large ad by a realtor selling a 9,000+ acre ranch along the Cannonball river. I can up date this post later with a better description, but the asking price is over $ 4.5 million.

Hunting in ND remains for sale. :******:

 

[redlabel]

There is and always has been a lot of real estate suitable for hunting in North Dakota for sale.

Check out prairieroserealty.com, adamfleck.com, the Friday farm section ot the Forum, The Farm and Ranch Guide, and the real estate section of the Bismarck Tribune are just a few. I'm sure there are plenty more.

[/url]

 

[nodakoutdoors.com]

Pretty much any publication that has anything to do with hunting might have something for sale in ND. Real estate site's are emerging almost daily that has some property or another in the state too.

I work for the MLS vendor who has the database for almost every listing in ND. The list of homes I watch drops all the time, and I think most of them are for hunting/fishing. You can tell by how they are listed that they are trying to sell them for that reason. But you can't blame them, there's not much to offer to a year round resident as far as jobs.

 

[Matt Jones]

Just walk into a few gas stations in pothole country up by Devils Lake. Most of them will have a few ads reading "waterfowl hunting land for sale or lease" or "looking for some good waterfowl hunting property" and then a phone number. I wonder if we'll be seeing less of this with the new cap? :roll:

 

[prairie hunter]

Good question Matt.

But as we spend time debating these issues on the net, others are spending time and money to identify and exploit legal loopholes in laws or to lobby government officials.

Here are a few ideas :

Like I has said a few times before. The cap may have little or no impact on land purchases by nonresidents. If the regs put in place for nonresident deer hunters are used as precendent for NR waterfowl licenses --- the nonresident landowner just might get gratis waterfowl licenses first under the cap numbers. This would in turn accelerate land purchases. I know two ex-ND residents (not wealthy either) who now plan to buy ND land since this is now the only way to get drawn for a buck license.

Leasing by an individual may decrease with the addition of tighter caps, but if someone comes up with the idea of a leasing / land holding company all bets are off.

Time shares for hunting
A realtor or land specialist could sell time shares to nonresidents. If you do not get drawn that person could resell their time share.

Or set up a lease / land holding company and then in-turn sub lease the land to visiting nonresident hunters when or if they get drawn. This is like an outfitter without the guides. I would guess this may already be happening in ND.

Group Investments
I found and posted the link to the Ill. group buying land as an association. If ten people (or more) get together and buy land the investment per person is reduced. Get drawn once everyother year ? Might still be worth the cost since they have a place to go when drawn.
I know of NR people that own lake cabins in MN that visit once every couple years.

Preserves
Unsure what rules are in effect regarding hunting preserves in ND. But if you stock mallards on these ponds - can the NR hunt mallards without the NR waterfowl license ?

 

[zogman]

I don't think you can stop a willing buyer and seller from these transactions. It is called democracy :beer: So why whine about it!!!!!! This site is depressing. Doesn't anyone fish or have fun in the summer or do you just brod about killing birds.

 

[Old Hunter]

First you make a comment on the subject then you badmouth this website. If you dont like it go away. If you want to hang arround why dont you contribute something? Old Hunter

 

[prairie hunter]

I agree that everyone has a right to sell property to the highest bidder. The problem now is both NR and local ND real estate brokers are advertising big photo adds in glossy magazines - chasing high dollar bidders. A posting on a bar bulletin board is not.

A few years back, a wealthy out-of-state hunter may have contacted a real estate broker and quietly purchased land in ND for hunting. This probably occurred more often than many realize. Still - the land was not bidded up or pushed on to NR owners. The price of the land was acceptable to NR hunters, ND hunters, or local ranchers.

I know of several ND residents that have bought land SW of the Missouri River. Land was relatively low cost. By buying land as a group of four or six individuals, the cost was acceptable. example : 640 acres @ $250 an acre is $160,000. Split 4 ways it is $40K each. If you could mortgage the land over 15 or 30 years - payments are not much different than a car or boat payment.

Too bad the ND G&F department could not purchase this ranch. 9,000 continuous or semi-continuous acres could offer a lot of room for many hunters. Similar to Lonetree or Heart Butte GMA.

 

[redlabel]

I am trying to follow what you are saying but I don't understand your last message.

Are you trying to say that the problem is ads in magaziines by realtors? Or are you saying the problem is real estate brokers trying to maxamize the price the seller receives?

You mention that a few years back the prices were acceptable. Are you saying that this is not a problem if the prices are acceptable?

Anyone contacting a real estate broker cannot buy land unless there is someone willing to sell land. A real estate transaction cannot take place unless there is a "willing buyer" and a "willing seller".

I agree that it is too bad that the NDG&F department cannot buy land. This would make an excellent purchase. :

 

[prairie hunter]

Seller can and should always be able to sell to the highest bidder. I agree that is capitalism.

Nonresident ownership is typically resented by local people whether it is ND farm land or the Japanese buying up Oregon and Washington forest land or Ted Turner buying 100K acre ranches in Montana or New Mexico.

The glossy half-page land simply attempts to escalate the land prices in that area of ND. Mresner stated a few months before that younger farmers or ranchers in SW ND could not compete with this new money.

In many areas of ND the land prices are now based upon the apparent recreational value of the land and no longer based upon the sustainable agricultural value of the land.

So if hunting land is more valuable than grazing land or general farm land the county tax assessor should

1) tax areas with wetlands higher not lower than surrounding agricultural crop land
2) tax areas with treebelts, willow patches, and swamps higher than over grazed pasture land
3) CRP land, land that often provides poor farming quality should be heavily taxed.

Any ND game management area or Federal WPA should be assessed very high taxes due to their apparent high market value. Counties should demand payment.

This would be great (sarcastic remark). Farmers will either sell off these lands with marketable hunting land value or destroy them. All some farmers need is another incentive to drain wetlands and remove habitat that often carries wildlife through hard winters.

Is this the direction ND needs to travel to ???

 

[redlabel]

I saw an auction bill for the Lil Ol Hotel in Pettibone this weekend. It is going to be sold at auction as a going business with a cafe.

Anyone wanting to have their own business could give it a whirl. Should be a great opportunity with all the business us residents give them on a year round basis.

 

[zogman]

oke: I don't think it would cash flow like one of them govamint jobs in Fargo, GF, or Bismarck

 

[Westerner]

Prairie Hunter,
I can definintely see your logic with the revision of tax codes. It would be a hard sell to landowners, but I feel, it is a reasonable solution. You are correct in asserting that since hunting has taken off that land values in SW ND have skyrocketed. I know of a landowner in Regent who sold his family farm and got an insane amount of money for good (not great) farmland that also was decent (again, not great) hunting land.

I do have this question, if you tax the land at a higher rate and on a new scale (recreational potential), then wouldn't the landowner have to be also given the right to reep those higher rewards in the form of fee hunting. What if we did something like this:
1. Put a tax (1-2%?) onto fee hunting operations. This money would be earmarked for improving existing public lands, enforcement of hunting regulations (make sure everyone has a license, no fee hunting on public land, trespassing---this will please the landowners enormously) and the increase of public hunting land. This tax would be passed on to the hunters already paying for access similar to how airlines add taxes charged by airports and other organizations.

2. Put together requirements and licensure of all fee hunting organizations similar to how all eating establishments must be licensed. Then list all the "licensed" outfitters in ND tourism packets. Make sure that they charge sales tax and the new "hunters" tax. Require all guides to have CPR training and communication (2-way radio/cell phone) to help cope with emergencies, etc.

Rather than turning the outfitters into the enemy, why not use them to help the states economy. Approach them as business men with something to offer to everyone, offer them advantages to participating in the program instead of simply trying to restrict them.

I think it would be a harder sell to put a high tax on CRP land. The fact is it would probably be assessed on a "per acre" basis, and the per acre payment is not very high. All this would do is eliminate a lot of CRP land (at least it would be pulled out of the program).

Now to comment on an earlier post that you had. I was intrigued by all the "loopholes" you pointed out and how NR landowners could get around the cap. They sounded well thought out and you deserve to be commended for an intelligent insight.

While the "cap" initiative was well intended, I do believe it will fail...utterly. It pleases nobody. Small town residents resent that a prime economic influx of money is being artificially and arbitrarily limited. They do not resent resident hunters, they want to have as many people as possible come through their business. Putting a cap on who can and cannot come through hurts them.

Hunters feel (justifiably) that it is simply a "symbolic" act that really will not affect their primary problem, access to land and good hunting experiences.

I am going to get back on my bandwagon again and assert that this cap will hurt access more than it will ever help it. The only people that will get access to much of the land in SW ND will be those who have friends, relatives, or some other connection. "Free lance" hunters will find many once open doors closed. Land owners resent what they see as hunters telling them how land can be used. Until this is resolved, then access will continue to deteriorate, regardless of if any NR hunters come in.

As far as "large purchases" of land, there is really no way to stop it legally. A lot of people do what you describe earlier in that they get together in groups and purchase land. I know of one group that did this and put the land into the Cannonball Company. When I asked why they would put land they just purchased into a fee hunting company they surprised me with their response. I expected to hear, "To recoup some of our costs of buying the land." What they said was, "We have lots of 'new' friends since we bought the land. This way we can pick and choose who we want on the land and the rest can pay." If you talk to landowners in fee hunting companies, this is often the sentiment, not naked greed like many posters on this site seem to believe.

 

[Field Hunter]

westerner,

Not to sound sarcastic but, do you run a fee hunting operation? Obviously you have the ear of the local people in western ND and are on top of what is going on out there.

The legislative session is going to be full of hunting issues this year and will be very interesting to see the issues that are brought up.

As far as more restrictions on residents due to the caps, I don't think it'll happen with the duck hunting. It may very well happen with the pheasants but if you were from eastern ND you would know that land has been closed and restricted for the better part of 10 years or so. Free lancing, for the most part is nearly impossible with the restricted time available to resident and NR hunters. Small town residents may resent the sportsmen of the state pulling for caps but the resident sportsmen also resent the fee operations catering to NR hunters as well. How about letting road hunting develop a little more, with restrictions about livestock and occupied bldgs. etc. It's just a suggestion but it could help to bring some more money and economic activity to an area by freelancers if they knew somebody wasn't going to get all bent out of shape if you shot an ocassional rooster from the ditch.

It is time that the fee hunting operations are taxed so I will agree with your ideas on that front. I believe as do many other sportsman that many of the fee hunting operations are so loosely regulated that they may not be reporting all the income they are bring in to the state. One way to check on the economic input to the local economies would be to tax them and regulate more.

 

[zogman]

I think they are taxed both at the state and federal level. It is called an INCOME TAX!!!!!!!!!! :splat:

 

[Westerner]

Field hunter,
No, I don't run a fee hunting operation. Just to clear that up. I do talk to a lot of people from around here that are involved in them, however, and that is where I get my data.

I have been thinking for quite a while that there needs to be some form of regulation on fee hunting. Not necessarily limitation, but regulation so that the state has data on who has these operations, how they are run and that no gaming laws are being broken. The problem isn't so much with regulating them as with finding them. If you check the internet, go to a search engine and look up "pheasant hunting---North Dakota" and you will get lots of operations, not like the Cannonball Company which most people know about and is relatively public, but also about 5-10 other ones in Regent that are only about 500 acres. These are, I believe, "mom and pop" organizations that are hard to regulate because they are hard to find. Just think of all the hunters that ask for money "under the table." The problem isn't with regulating but with finding.

I don't mean to imply that there will be a lot of legal fighting by landowners against hunters, I just think that they will be even more strict about letting people onto their land. Many of them are very mad and these feelings will not go away but get stronger as fires are stoked as we approach the hunting season.