The editors at the Forum provide additional proof in writing that they aren't the brightest bulbs on the tree. :eyeroll:
Forum editorial: Out-of-state hunter has new money
The Forum - 01/23/2003
When North Dakota lawmakers consider hunting bills today in two committee hearings, they will have the latest and best information about the economic impacts of hunting and fishing. A North Dakota State University study completed this month found that hunting and fishing have billion-dollar direct and secondary impacts on the state's economy. That's huge.
Research scientist Dean Bangsund and professor Larry Leistritz of NDSU's Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics analyzed data about hunting and fishing activity in years 2001-2002. The study already has been cited by legislators, and as sure as cold in January, competing sides in the resident-nonresident hunting debate will pick and choose statistics that buttress their arguments.
But there is one conclusion that can be drawn from the study that cannot be dismissed: Nonresident hunter expenditures are "new money," that is, an infusion of dollars into North Dakota's rural economy that would not occur were it not for nonresident hunters and anglers.
The data show that residents spent far more ($468.5 million in direct expenditures) than nonresidents ($65.9 million). That should come as no surprise since the number of residents who hunt and fish is greater than the number of nonresidents.
But the importance of the out-of-state money to the rural economy cannot be minimized. It's new wealth.
On the other hand, expenditures by resident hunters and anglers are a shift of dollars within the state's economy. It's not new money.
The nonresident hunter, however, is coming with new dollars - dollars that would dry up if unreasonable restrictions were slapped on nonresidents.
While the study is the best information the state has about hunting and fishing impacts, it also raises questions. The out-of-state money from nonresidents is one. Another is: If hunting pressure from nonresidents increases, will resident expenditures slip as resident hunters get squeezed off of prime hunting lands? Will resident hunters take their dollars and seek a better hunting experience out of state?
None of that has happened. And there is no convincing evidence it will. Indeed, all the whining from a few so-called sportsmen's organizations about nonresident hunters has an aura of parochialism about it that, if allowed to influence hunting regulation, could damage small-town rural economies.
Anti-nonresident hunters will look at the NDSU study and make the point (a valid one) that the economic impact in rural North Dakota from resident hunters is far greater than from nonresidents. But in the same breath they will complain that nonresidents are pushing residents off hunting lands. They can't have it both ways. If the economic impact of nonresidents is so small when compared to residents, then surely nonresidents can't be as big a problem as the so-called sportsmen's groups claim.
Lawmakers have a difficult job ahead of them. Striking a balance among wildlife resources, resident hunters and nonresident hunters will require delicate compromises. But as the process proceeds, legislators must keep in mind that the new money that comes into the state with nonresident hunters and anglers is significant, not only in rural counties, but also for the state's overall economy.
Forum editorials represent the opinion of Forum management and the newspaper's Editorial Board
Forum editorial: Out-of-state hunter has new money
The Forum - 01/23/2003
When North Dakota lawmakers consider hunting bills today in two committee hearings, they will have the latest and best information about the economic impacts of hunting and fishing. A North Dakota State University study completed this month found that hunting and fishing have billion-dollar direct and secondary impacts on the state's economy. That's huge.
Research scientist Dean Bangsund and professor Larry Leistritz of NDSU's Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics analyzed data about hunting and fishing activity in years 2001-2002. The study already has been cited by legislators, and as sure as cold in January, competing sides in the resident-nonresident hunting debate will pick and choose statistics that buttress their arguments.
But there is one conclusion that can be drawn from the study that cannot be dismissed: Nonresident hunter expenditures are "new money," that is, an infusion of dollars into North Dakota's rural economy that would not occur were it not for nonresident hunters and anglers.
The data show that residents spent far more ($468.5 million in direct expenditures) than nonresidents ($65.9 million). That should come as no surprise since the number of residents who hunt and fish is greater than the number of nonresidents.
But the importance of the out-of-state money to the rural economy cannot be minimized. It's new wealth.
On the other hand, expenditures by resident hunters and anglers are a shift of dollars within the state's economy. It's not new money.
The nonresident hunter, however, is coming with new dollars - dollars that would dry up if unreasonable restrictions were slapped on nonresidents.
While the study is the best information the state has about hunting and fishing impacts, it also raises questions. The out-of-state money from nonresidents is one. Another is: If hunting pressure from nonresidents increases, will resident expenditures slip as resident hunters get squeezed off of prime hunting lands? Will resident hunters take their dollars and seek a better hunting experience out of state?
None of that has happened. And there is no convincing evidence it will. Indeed, all the whining from a few so-called sportsmen's organizations about nonresident hunters has an aura of parochialism about it that, if allowed to influence hunting regulation, could damage small-town rural economies.
Anti-nonresident hunters will look at the NDSU study and make the point (a valid one) that the economic impact in rural North Dakota from resident hunters is far greater than from nonresidents. But in the same breath they will complain that nonresidents are pushing residents off hunting lands. They can't have it both ways. If the economic impact of nonresidents is so small when compared to residents, then surely nonresidents can't be as big a problem as the so-called sportsmen's groups claim.
Lawmakers have a difficult job ahead of them. Striking a balance among wildlife resources, resident hunters and nonresident hunters will require delicate compromises. But as the process proceeds, legislators must keep in mind that the new money that comes into the state with nonresident hunters and anglers is significant, not only in rural counties, but also for the state's overall economy.
Forum editorials represent the opinion of Forum management and the newspaper's Editorial Board
