[rap]

here's an opinion written in the fargo forum today... looks like we should start gathering signatures.

----------
James L. Nagel letter: Landowners clear about hunting bill
The Forum - 03/14/2003
A rancher from Pingree, N.D., by the name of Oren Krapp was successful in obtaining over 700 signatures from rural landowners in just one week, stating their disapproval of SB2048 which would restrict the number of non-resident waterfowl hunters allowed in this State.

The issue is really an access issue and I believe the resident sportsmen efforts would be better spent trying to establish relationships with the landowner instead of lobbying to have legislation put in place that would only further harm hunter-landowner relationships. Forcing something on the landowner that they do not want is like shooting yourself in the foot, and will only cause more land to be off limits to the resident hunter.

Another thing that could be done is lobby for compromise so we can put this subject to rest once and for all. For example amendments to SB2048 which would cap the number of non-resident waterfowl hunters somewhere near year 2002 license sales and not the numbers in the formula expressed in SB2048 which would on average only allow about 15,000 non-resident waterfowl licenses. Signatures are still being gathered and the list is growing. The time for compromise is now. I would encourage all concerned to start thinking about compromise instead of going for the throat.

The final say-so on who is going to hunt on private land is the landowner. It is not the say-so of either the resident or non-resident hunter, or the say-so of state government. The passage of the current version of SB2048 will not solve access problem it will only make it worse. The time to get rid of emotion is now.

James L. Nagel

Bismarck

 

[Fetch]

He must be French :roll:

 

[nodakoutdoors.com]

I do agree with the ending of the article:

The time to get rid of emotion is now.

No need to get fired up over this one. There's nothing in SB 2048 that tells a landowner what to do with his/her land. And it's pretty clear all along that we've been VERY COMPROMISING on these issues. We're not in favor of building the big fence to keep everyone out like I've heard many times. Just to reinforce, here's some examples of our compromises this session:

SB 2048: In the beginning, the NDSA did the survey and the results showed that residents were in favor of 10,500 NR licenses (correct me if I'm wrong). Since then, it was bumped to 15,000, than the HPC, than the HPC with the 25% allowance (increase). We've compromised and accepted the changes throughout the process. We're supporting our Game & Fish on this bill.

SB 2227: This bill would make any nonresident under 16 eligible to hunt small game and waterfowl under a resident license. (We're supported this all along)

SB 2322: This bill would allow non resident full-time students from certain states to purchase non-lottery type resident licenses. (We're supported this all along

SB 2242: This is the bill that would allow NR's to be able to hunt the early canada goose season in the troubled counties, without taking away from their 2 week period. This is a bill THAT WE SUPPORT, even though we're losing hunting opportunities, because we know that this will help landowners in crisis of the canada goose problem, where insurance companies won't cover the crop loss by canada geese. This is the only bill that would pin landowners against hunters and we're not going to infringe on the landowners rights.

SB 2363: This allows NR's to be able to draw a doe tag after our second draw at a reduced rate. (We're supported this the whole way)

These are some examples of our compromise throughout the session. I can't even come up with one example where there was compromise on the other side???

And for the record, Oren Krapp runs a large outfitting business, so the signatures were probably to help secure their business. I'm not going to get into the who's,what's, or why's....just simply want to clarify.

We still could use more support, and anyone who wants to help can signup on the etree:

North Dakota eTree

 

[economics 101]

Chris,

While you are correct that SB2048 does not directly tell a landowner what he or she can or cannot do with their land, it does limit them as to their options. This has been and will continue to be the largest problem with 2048. This is a major access bill and not science as was admitted by Mr. Johnson in his testomony last week. Even though your group feels they have compromised, the landowner does not see it as such. The landowner will eventually have the last say.

 

[Curt Wells]

Gentlemen,

It should be noted that Mr. Nagel left out the fact that he was a guide/outfitter. Funny how he didn't think that was pertinent to the subject matter.

Plus, he throws out the same old line about building relationships with landowners. Some just can't get it through their heads that those relationships, which most of us work on all the time, become invalid when outfitters lay the money on the kitchen table. It's too bad they can't come up with a better argument for crying out loud.

This talk of compromise is a joke. Sportsmen's groups have made MAJOR compromises on these issues and the other side has not moved a single inch to this point. Not one inch.

And, it is NOT up to the state of North Dakota or the Game and Fish Dept. to provide landowners with any and all "options." If the truth were known, most of the land that's being threatened to be closed if SB 2048 passes is mostly likely already inaccessible.

 

[gandergrinder]

Curt,
I agree with your opinion that most of the land that the opponents of 2048 own or lease would not be accesible any way. The relationship that many of these people want to establish is one where I hand them a $100 and now we have a "relationship" For the day anyway.

 

[Ron Gilmore]

The way a question is asked makes a big difference on the answer. I have made this point before. Tell a landowner he cannot do something and they are on the defensive. Show them why not doing something is of value to them and to the community, and the attitude and anwser changes.
Curt is right and so is Chris we are at the point that we need to keep our pressure up. Attend the legislative forums this weekend ask the questions. I am truly amazed that wtih reasonable conversation and information sharing how many people will support 2048. THe key is to dispell misinformation.

We need to stay the line and answer the challenge of involement. My opinion of the Krapp signature numbers they seems to be a little off? This would mean that he had to contact a hundred people a day, if all agreed. Once again show me the list and names and dates they signed and what question was asked of them when they signed. The supporters of this bill in Bismarck would ask the same things I just presented.

Econ the farm program limits a farmers options, the bank limits a farmers options, the weather limits a farmers options, other farmers limit farmers options. You limit farmers options.

The real issue and question is that option limit a short term gain and long term negative, or a short term and long term negative or a short and long term gain. When presented with information showing the total impact most of the farmers I have spoken with agree that the short term gain does not offset the the negative impact to the community from lost income from lack of access caused by leasing. The loss of young and begining farmers that leave do to recreational land purchaes, or those whos capital must be used in purchasing overvalued land leaving nothing to invest in equipment.

Next time you have a group of farmers sitting around your establishment ask them if they support a policy that will drive young people off the farm, rasie there land tax, and hurt the local businesses, then show them the truth behind 2048 instead of the me and mine only BS that Blanchfield and Krapp ans Schlect and Cannonball and Erbele and the others promoting Texas style hunting for ND and see how they anwser. That is a truthful and accurate question not, sportsmen are trying to tell you who can hunt on you land.

By the way have you put up your sign to let everonye know that you do not support 2048. From your posts and input this should be a good marketing approach? I would think it would double your business.

 

[nd resident]

Gandergrinder: The same relationship we have with the theater when we give them the $5.00-$10.00 to sit through two hours of trash. The same relationship we have when we go to the cities and give them their greens fee for a few hours of golfing. The same relationship as when I go to a STADIUM and pay to watch a bunch of overpaid players do there thing. In fact there are many instances in this great state of ours where the relationship betweeen two individiduals is based on the exchange of a few bucks. I still do not understand what the problem is in giving the local landowner a few bucks for tramping across his land for a day. In our area we have had free hunting forever and it hasn't helped us retain our population base.

 

[MRN]

NDRes,
Unfortunately, you fail to realize that the exchanges you describe involves ownership rights or a service. Wildlife belongs to the state, not the farmer. If the farmer grew the wildlife - like a game preserve operation - then no one can say boo about it. That should be obvious, but then again, I come from a place were fee hunting is prohibited for this reason.

On the bright side, I look forward to your support as I attempt to establish the first legal brothel in ND next legislative session. The time sure seems right in ND.

M.

 

[gandergrinder]

nd resident,
Charging for land access is a short term solution to a much more complex economic problem.

Let's say for hypothetical purposes that you can retain some of your population through land access fees. Everything goes well for a few years then we get one terrible winter and the large numbers of pheasants die. Hunting drops off dramatically and the hunters don't come to your area and hunt. Dollars spent by hunters drop and you are back to where you were in terms of loss of population. This same scenario could be repeated with waterfowl if we have a drought. Hunters are an enterprising lot and when the hunting is better some place else, they will go there. Solutions to economic problems and outmigration from rural areas need to be thought out on a longer time line. Not a short term band aid approach.

In another post you asked me if I would be willing to move to your town if I could hunt for free on good hunting land. You bet I would. Some day I will live in a small town. But I still need to find a job. Not many jobs are created from a farmer charging for land access.

I never said that the landowner could not charge. I will just choose not to buy the product. Just like you choose to watch two hours of trash and over paid players.

 

[spirit water steve]

Clearly with such a tremendous response in such a short time it is abundantly clear that SB2048 needs to be defeated.

 

[Old Hunter]

spirit water steve. James Nagel is a guide south of Streeter. He guides on Senator Bob Erble's land south of Streeter. They dont let any one hunt unless they are a paying customer. I have asked to hunt and have been turned down. Nagel is telling people to build relationships while he ties up land and doesn't let people hunt. Your allies are hippocrites.

 

[Old Hunter]

I was hoping for a reply fron spirit water steve but It appears he has nothing more to say on this subject. A bump will do. I want people to see this crap by James Nagle. Like I said a guide with a senator leasing up land then telling people to build relationships. Steve your in with a sleazy group.