Our fees that we charge to NR hunters is way to low. If I go to Minnesota, North Carolina, Colorado or Montana to hunt I can't buy a deer, bear or elk license without paying a very high out of state fee for each hunting experience because there is high demand and limited availability for these hunts. Perhaps we need to do as someome suggested and sell our pheasant license for a fair price and a seperate waterfowl license for a fair price and not for an additional $25 or so because there is a very high demand for these hunts and because in North Dakota we provide a very high quality hunt. We sell them way to cheap!!! We can then use this money to increase habitat and access which is what everyone is concerned about. When I go to the Twin Cities, nothing is cheap - Timberwolves $40 or more, Vikings $40 or more, Valley Fair $40 - all for one game or days addmission and we pay for the parking. They also charge us much higher prices for food, drinks and lodging. We should not be returning the favor by giving quality hunting experiences away for a whole season at rock bottom prices. I think that NR come to hunt because they are getting great hunting at firesale prices. I say charge a fair price for the quality of the game and service we provide and give them the parking for free!! And if it keeps getting more and more crowded start charging for the parking!
Give the parking for free
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Our fees that we charge to NR hunters is way to low. If I go to Minnesota, North Carolina, Colorado or Montana to hunt I can't buy a deer, bear or elk license without paying a very high out of state fee for each hunting experience because there is high demand and limited availability for these hunts. Perhaps we need to do as someome suggested and sell our pheasant license for a fair price and a seperate waterfowl license for a fair price and not for an additional $25 or so because there is a very high demand for these hunts and because in North Dakota we provide a very high quality hunt. We sell them way to cheap!!! We can then use this money to increase habitat and access which is what everyone is concerned about. When I go to the Twin Cities, nothing is cheap - Timberwolves $40 or more, Vikings $40 or more, Valley Fair $40 - all for one game or days addmission and we pay for the parking. They also charge us much higher prices for food, drinks and lodging. We should not be returning the favor by giving quality hunting experiences away for a whole season at rock bottom prices. I think that NR come to hunt because they are getting great hunting at firesale prices. I say charge a fair price for the quality of the game and service we provide and give them the parking for free!! And if it keeps getting more and more crowded start charging for the parking!
Joined
·
846 Posts
ND could certainly split waterfowl and upland licenses and charge rates like SD. More money for state run programs, but this does not impact any of the hunters using outfitters.
Not the best set of examples DJ. Sure MT and CO can charge a lot for their big game hunts because they have what others really want. But a little research on the WEB shows that the license costs out there are already comparable or less than what ND charges:
MN : $126 deer firearm. $88 birds (upland and waterfowl w/stamps)
NC : $70 waterfowl and another $60 and you get deer permits
MT : $50 for waterfowl and $110 for upland game
CO : Small game (W&U) $40.25 annual or 5.25 per day.
All of your non-hunting examples are for privately owned or corporately owned companies. The amusement parks and the sports teams charge what the market is willing to pay. Neighboring companies (parking lot owners) also charge what the customer is willing to pay. The closer you are to the ballpark, the higher the fees.
Do not want to pay - watch on TV. :beer:
The state does take in some revenue on a sales tax basis, but most often this does equal the actual (or proposed) cash drain on the state these team owners want to impose on local tax payers for new stadiums, etc
The guys using the commercial hunting operations in ND could argue the same thing. I buy a license, then the costs only go up from there. I have to pay for someone to pick me up at the airport, I pay each day for a guide, I pay for lodging and food. At $250 dollars / day / person. The hunting, lodging, and food in ND is pretty damn expensive. :******:
Not the best set of examples DJ. Sure MT and CO can charge a lot for their big game hunts because they have what others really want. But a little research on the WEB shows that the license costs out there are already comparable or less than what ND charges:
MN : $126 deer firearm. $88 birds (upland and waterfowl w/stamps)
NC : $70 waterfowl and another $60 and you get deer permits
MT : $50 for waterfowl and $110 for upland game
CO : Small game (W&U) $40.25 annual or 5.25 per day.
All of your non-hunting examples are for privately owned or corporately owned companies. The amusement parks and the sports teams charge what the market is willing to pay. Neighboring companies (parking lot owners) also charge what the customer is willing to pay. The closer you are to the ballpark, the higher the fees.
Do not want to pay - watch on TV. :beer:
The state does take in some revenue on a sales tax basis, but most often this does equal the actual (or proposed) cash drain on the state these team owners want to impose on local tax payers for new stadiums, etc
The guys using the commercial hunting operations in ND could argue the same thing. I buy a license, then the costs only go up from there. I have to pay for someone to pick me up at the airport, I pay each day for a guide, I pay for lodging and food. At $250 dollars / day / person. The hunting, lodging, and food in ND is pretty damn expensive. :******:
Where did I say anything about impacting outfitters? I have no resaon to be judgmental towards any outfitters. I have hunted in N. Dak. all my life (50 years) and have never had access problems. I have always found plenty of places to hunt for free or for the cost of friendship. My increase in fees is to improve habitat and access. In your opinion Colorado has the hunts that people want in my opinion N. Dak. has the hunts that people want - world class hunting for waterfowl and pheasants. Don't tell me to stay home and watch it on TV because I will just go hunting. If you don't want to pay you can watch Tony Dean and others shoot their birds on TV. Why do you bring outfitters into the discussion? I am pushing higher fees to help with the access problem. I certainly do not advocate telling any landowner what they should do with their land. If you think that the hunting is too expensive then stay home while I go hunting. We offer world class hunting at rock bottom prices!! One other thing, if you want to go to North Carolina, Colorado or Montana and pay their fees for hunting waterfowl and upland game go right ahead and do it but I would rather stay in North Dakota where the hunting is world class!!!
Joined
·
846 Posts
Are you a little :******: today ? 8)
Are guides and outfitters part of the access problem or not ??
I grew up hunting in ND and return every year. Do not use guides or outfitters - although many of those guiding in ND could probably use my experience, knowledge of ND land, and quality bird dogs. Search my prior posts and you will realize that I return to ND to hunt
1) because this is where most of my family and friends live
2) I know the lay of the land, hunting customs and laws
3) Yes - bird hunting is first class.
I know it gets the goat of many on this site, but the quality of my hunts in ND have remained the same if not improved over the past 5 years. Looking at the hunting report posts of many younger guys on this site ... they have certainly adapted to all these "changes" and increase hunting pressure very well. Raise the fees - I will return because of the three reasons above, but also hold NDG&F responsible for using the new money in the best and most efficient way.
No plans to hunt in the places you listed on your post. You brought these states to the table, you said they charge more, in regards to fees you were often wrong. :eyeroll:
The correlation of worldclass hunting and attending pro sports events is pretty lame. :eyeroll:
Are guides and outfitters part of the access problem or not ??
I grew up hunting in ND and return every year. Do not use guides or outfitters - although many of those guiding in ND could probably use my experience, knowledge of ND land, and quality bird dogs.
Search my prior posts and you will realize that I return to ND to hunt 1) because this is where most of my family and friends live
2) I know the lay of the land, hunting customs and laws
3) Yes - bird hunting is first class.
I know it gets the goat of many on this site, but the quality of my hunts in ND have remained the same if not improved over the past 5 years. Looking at the hunting report posts of many younger guys on this site ... they have certainly adapted to all these "changes" and increase hunting pressure very well. Raise the fees - I will return because of the three reasons above, but also hold NDG&F responsible for using the new money in the best and most efficient way.
No plans to hunt in the places you listed on your post. You brought these states to the table, you said they charge more, in regards to fees you were often wrong. :eyeroll:
The correlation of worldclass hunting and attending pro sports events is pretty lame. :eyeroll:
Joined
·
1,871 Posts
DJ,
I have to agree with you and prairie hunter. Raise the fees and seperate the upland from the waterfowl. Use the increased fees from waterfowling to help lease more PLOTS with waterfowl hunting. I'd bet there are hundreds of farmers out there that would love to get some extra money for a large slough that is good for nothing else. Then use the increased fees from a new upland license to lease more CRP....much more. Sorry PR, but I'd also advocate a limited time period for NRs due to the amount of land they are tying up on their owns leases as many hunt every weekend. Although I feel a limited time period should be implemented, I do think there is some merit in allowing NRs to either purchase a second license or allow FAMILY, not friends and family, an extended time period to hunt on one license per year. If I lived out of state and my Dad farmed, I'd want to be able to get here say for the MN teachers convention weekend, opener, Thanksgiving, and X-mas vacation.
As far as the fees are concerned.....the better the hunting the higher they should be. Our waterfowling IS world class. Lets charge world class prices for it. Our upland is great but maybe not world class. Charge a little less but still keep it comparable to SD for instance.
Hate to add something on outfitters but they have a place. They need to be regulated better and limited as to the amount of land they control and take out of the average hunters access.
I have to agree with you and prairie hunter. Raise the fees and seperate the upland from the waterfowl. Use the increased fees from waterfowling to help lease more PLOTS with waterfowl hunting. I'd bet there are hundreds of farmers out there that would love to get some extra money for a large slough that is good for nothing else. Then use the increased fees from a new upland license to lease more CRP....much more. Sorry PR, but I'd also advocate a limited time period for NRs due to the amount of land they are tying up on their owns leases as many hunt every weekend. Although I feel a limited time period should be implemented, I do think there is some merit in allowing NRs to either purchase a second license or allow FAMILY, not friends and family, an extended time period to hunt on one license per year. If I lived out of state and my Dad farmed, I'd want to be able to get here say for the MN teachers convention weekend, opener, Thanksgiving, and X-mas vacation.
As far as the fees are concerned.....the better the hunting the higher they should be. Our waterfowling IS world class. Lets charge world class prices for it. Our upland is great but maybe not world class. Charge a little less but still keep it comparable to SD for instance.
Hate to add something on outfitters but they have a place. They need to be regulated better and limited as to the amount of land they control and take out of the average hunters access.
Joined
·
50 Posts
I agree. Need to increase revenues and tie that money to habitat aquasition.
Joined
·
846 Posts
In addition to separate license fees for upland and waterfowl, why not create a true habitat / PLOT stamp and use money solely for land acq. and PLOT leases.
Possession of the stamp would be required for any hunter (age 16 and over) to hunt public land under NDG&F control (they can not enforce this on Fed WPAs).
Make it mandatory for both residents and nonresidents. If you hunt public land help sponsor it.
Residents could pay $5 - $20 per year. I guess soak the nonresidents like every other state does and have them pay $20 to $100 per year.
Those that use the public land and PLOT land pay for it.
Finally no guides on any public land.
Possession of the stamp would be required for any hunter (age 16 and over) to hunt public land under NDG&F control (they can not enforce this on Fed WPAs).
Make it mandatory for both residents and nonresidents. If you hunt public land help sponsor it.
Residents could pay $5 - $20 per year. I guess soak the nonresidents like every other state does and have them pay $20 to $100 per year.
Those that use the public land and PLOT land pay for it.
Finally no guides on any public land.
Joined
·
4,642 Posts
The posts above are good points, but access cannot be the sole issue. If it were so, the implication would be that there is more than enough land that could be brought into PLOTS to remedy the situation. There is not unlimited habitat. Close to a million acres are currently contracted by outfitters, and probably a million more acres are in some type of private fee hunting arraingement between private individuals. ND only has 45,000,000 acres privately owned, much of it not wildlife habitat. The best stuff is taken by big money already.
Today the PLOTS program gives the existing ND bird hunters the equivilant of about 4 football fields per hunter. That is the space you get for the year. If you subtract out the PLOTS outside of the pheasant belt, the number of acres is much smaller than 4. Assume it will hold birds? Not hardly because it will be pounded every day as more private land is closed to hunters.
Outfitters are increaseing in number rapidly, and their leasing continues to accelerate. I am not aware of any possible method to control the outfitter leasing other than controling their client base, which is NR hunters. Caps. Gotta have caps. Absolutely. Plain and simple.
The split license is great. So are increased fees dedicated to access programs. NDGF was given a list of almost 100 suggestions at just one of the pheasantgate advisory meetings, all suggestions that would benifit the bird hunting issues. But as good as those suggestions were, they will be meaningless without caps.
I had my third best pheasant season ever this year with still a month to go. It was due to a good bird population and a lot of hard work. To say that there is no problem because my season was good and I was able to find access, is short sighted. Like saying the kitchen is on fire but the rest of the house is ok. Every year the open access is shrinking. Every year more hunters are attempting to utilize that shrinking amount of acres. Gentelmen, there is a trend here. Caps are the only way to stop that trend.
Today the PLOTS program gives the existing ND bird hunters the equivilant of about 4 football fields per hunter. That is the space you get for the year. If you subtract out the PLOTS outside of the pheasant belt, the number of acres is much smaller than 4. Assume it will hold birds? Not hardly because it will be pounded every day as more private land is closed to hunters.
Outfitters are increaseing in number rapidly, and their leasing continues to accelerate. I am not aware of any possible method to control the outfitter leasing other than controling their client base, which is NR hunters. Caps. Gotta have caps. Absolutely. Plain and simple.
The split license is great. So are increased fees dedicated to access programs. NDGF was given a list of almost 100 suggestions at just one of the pheasantgate advisory meetings, all suggestions that would benifit the bird hunting issues. But as good as those suggestions were, they will be meaningless without caps.
I had my third best pheasant season ever this year with still a month to go. It was due to a good bird population and a lot of hard work. To say that there is no problem because my season was good and I was able to find access, is short sighted. Like saying the kitchen is on fire but the rest of the house is ok. Every year the open access is shrinking. Every year more hunters are attempting to utilize that shrinking amount of acres. Gentelmen, there is a trend here. Caps are the only way to stop that trend.
Joined
·
1,124 Posts
Dano2 You can spend your whole life riding in the front of the bus. Move to North Dakota. If you do not care to live here then be content to be a guest as allowed.
Old Hunter,
Unless I'm mistaken, a fair share of the funds available for purchasing waterfowl production areas and waterfowl refuges are a result of the purchase of the federal waterfowl stamp that each of us has to purchase. In addition, my federal taxes help pay for the purchase of said land. Unless you are willing to make each state responsible for managing its natural resources without federal assistance, you'd better not make it too onerous for the NR to make use of these resources or you'll be footing the bill. Last I checked, ND was not exactly the most prosperous state in the nation.
Unless I'm mistaken, a fair share of the funds available for purchasing waterfowl production areas and waterfowl refuges are a result of the purchase of the federal waterfowl stamp that each of us has to purchase. In addition, my federal taxes help pay for the purchase of said land. Unless you are willing to make each state responsible for managing its natural resources without federal assistance, you'd better not make it too onerous for the NR to make use of these resources or you'll be footing the bill. Last I checked, ND was not exactly the most prosperous state in the nation.
Joined
·
1,871 Posts
I don't think Old Hunter or other residents would ever talk about closing access to federal refuges or WPAs. You're right, they were paid for by the federal govn. so they should be used by all the US hunters.
Access to the rest is what most of us are discussing. You're also right that ND is not the most properous state but one of the reasons many of us live here, with reduced salaries compared to other states, is the the quality of life. Hunting is a big part of that. The $$$ that come from NR licenses are small in comparison to the state taxes that we pay to help maintain schools and roads in the state. Don't get me wrong, the money generated by the NR hunter is very appreciated by most people in the state, especially in the small towns. However the residents live and support the state financially for more than 2 weeks out of the year.
Mr. Monson, I'm coming to accept your position more and more as to the caps. I've felt there is a place for the outfitters but it can't continue to accelerate in the way it has in the past. SD, for instance, has recently taken up the issue of road hunting in the ditches. At least their residents were able to put birds in the freezer by drivinng back roads. Now the big $$$ interests are going after that as well. If ND doesn't cap the waterfowl as well as work on more access then we may follow in line with SD and become a pay to hunt state. One thing I can't understand is all the whinning about the caps placed on NR waterfowl hunters. In 2001 ND WELCOMED 30,029 waterfowl hunters, No Cap! In 2002 we placed a cap of 30,000 on NRs. We didn't cut down on the # of NRs that are welcome to hunt the state, we just stopped the dramatic increases in numbers that have been happeniing every year. Now the Hunter pressure concept has been discussed and has passed our interim B committee 14-2. In the future, if we have an over abundance of water as was the case the last 5 years or so, there may be more than the 30,000 licenses issued that year. When the water subsides there would be fewer licenses. What could be more fair. We've been managing our deer herd like than for years and it seems to work fine.
We can discuss the waterfowl caps forever. In my opinion, there are going to be less waterfowl hunters every year for a while anyway as the water continues to shrink and potholes dry up. The drought is alive and well in ND this year. If the snow and the rains in the spring don't come again this year, there'll be many less hunters, both resident and NR in the future. Many of the NRs don't realize it but in the last drought in ND there simply weren't many ducks. It'll happen again. Many of you have hunted the Fredonia, Wishek, and Kulm areas in past years. In the drought I can remember scouting those areas all day and seeing less than a 100 birds a day. I can just about imagine what the outcry would be by NR waterfowlers if they purchased licenses and arrived to find no game.
Access to the rest is what most of us are discussing. You're also right that ND is not the most properous state but one of the reasons many of us live here, with reduced salaries compared to other states, is the the quality of life. Hunting is a big part of that. The $$$ that come from NR licenses are small in comparison to the state taxes that we pay to help maintain schools and roads in the state. Don't get me wrong, the money generated by the NR hunter is very appreciated by most people in the state, especially in the small towns. However the residents live and support the state financially for more than 2 weeks out of the year.
Mr. Monson, I'm coming to accept your position more and more as to the caps. I've felt there is a place for the outfitters but it can't continue to accelerate in the way it has in the past. SD, for instance, has recently taken up the issue of road hunting in the ditches. At least their residents were able to put birds in the freezer by drivinng back roads. Now the big $$$ interests are going after that as well. If ND doesn't cap the waterfowl as well as work on more access then we may follow in line with SD and become a pay to hunt state. One thing I can't understand is all the whinning about the caps placed on NR waterfowl hunters. In 2001 ND WELCOMED 30,029 waterfowl hunters, No Cap! In 2002 we placed a cap of 30,000 on NRs. We didn't cut down on the # of NRs that are welcome to hunt the state, we just stopped the dramatic increases in numbers that have been happeniing every year. Now the Hunter pressure concept has been discussed and has passed our interim B committee 14-2. In the future, if we have an over abundance of water as was the case the last 5 years or so, there may be more than the 30,000 licenses issued that year. When the water subsides there would be fewer licenses. What could be more fair. We've been managing our deer herd like than for years and it seems to work fine.
We can discuss the waterfowl caps forever. In my opinion, there are going to be less waterfowl hunters every year for a while anyway as the water continues to shrink and potholes dry up. The drought is alive and well in ND this year. If the snow and the rains in the spring don't come again this year, there'll be many less hunters, both resident and NR in the future. Many of the NRs don't realize it but in the last drought in ND there simply weren't many ducks. It'll happen again. Many of you have hunted the Fredonia, Wishek, and Kulm areas in past years. In the drought I can remember scouting those areas all day and seeing less than a 100 birds a day. I can just about imagine what the outcry would be by NR waterfowlers if they purchased licenses and arrived to find no game.
Dick.
Great points about access. Caps may help, but it could also just shift access to fewer people with much much deeper pockets.
Please also consider the forsight that the fine people of Alberta put into their wildlife laws. They saw this problem on the horizon and addressed it the following way. To me, this is the reasonable but "outside-the-box" thinking we should embrace.
*****************
http://www.albertaoutdoorsmen.org/hunti ... index.html
Access to Public and Private Lands
Except under authority of a Game Bird Shooting Ground Licence, it is unlawful to directly or indirectly buy or sell, trade or barter, or offer to buy or sell access to any land for the purpose of hunting any big game, furbearing animals or game birds.
WILDLIFE ACT of Alberta
http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/Documents/acts/W10.CFM
1984 cW-9.1 s48;1996 c33 s34
Disposition of access to land
49(1) No person shall directly or indirectly buy or sell, trade or barter or offer to buy or sell access to any land for the purpose of hunting any big game or any fur-bearing animals on any land.
(2) No person shall directly or indirectly buy or sell, trade or barter or offer to buy or sell access to any land for the purpose of hunting any game bird except as provided in subsection (3).
(3) No person shall directly or indirectly buy or sell, trade or barter or offer to buy or sell access to any land for the purpose of hunting upland game birds
(a) on privately owned land unless the person holds a licence issued to the person for that purpose pursuant to this Act and except in accordance with the regulations, or
(b) on public land that is not privately owned land.
************************
This is the most reasonable starting point for discussion on hunting access. The resource of interest, game animals, belong to the people of the state, unless they are specifically grown and released under a game preserve lic. Some may comment that this will do away with any incentive to keep a lot of good habitat on private ground. However, we're already paying for a whole bunch of habitat through CRP and NRCS(?) and whatever else.
Will it lead to a whole bunch more game preserves? - sure. These folks should be encouraged to make a good sustainable business with capital investment and all that.
M.
Great points about access. Caps may help, but it could also just shift access to fewer people with much much deeper pockets.
Please also consider the forsight that the fine people of Alberta put into their wildlife laws. They saw this problem on the horizon and addressed it the following way. To me, this is the reasonable but "outside-the-box" thinking we should embrace.
*****************
http://www.albertaoutdoorsmen.org/hunti ... index.html
Access to Public and Private Lands
Except under authority of a Game Bird Shooting Ground Licence, it is unlawful to directly or indirectly buy or sell, trade or barter, or offer to buy or sell access to any land for the purpose of hunting any big game, furbearing animals or game birds.
WILDLIFE ACT of Alberta
http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/Documents/acts/W10.CFM
1984 cW-9.1 s48;1996 c33 s34
Disposition of access to land
49(1) No person shall directly or indirectly buy or sell, trade or barter or offer to buy or sell access to any land for the purpose of hunting any big game or any fur-bearing animals on any land.
(2) No person shall directly or indirectly buy or sell, trade or barter or offer to buy or sell access to any land for the purpose of hunting any game bird except as provided in subsection (3).
(3) No person shall directly or indirectly buy or sell, trade or barter or offer to buy or sell access to any land for the purpose of hunting upland game birds
(a) on privately owned land unless the person holds a licence issued to the person for that purpose pursuant to this Act and except in accordance with the regulations, or
(b) on public land that is not privately owned land.
************************
This is the most reasonable starting point for discussion on hunting access. The resource of interest, game animals, belong to the people of the state, unless they are specifically grown and released under a game preserve lic. Some may comment that this will do away with any incentive to keep a lot of good habitat on private ground. However, we're already paying for a whole bunch of habitat through CRP and NRCS(?) and whatever else.
Will it lead to a whole bunch more game preserves? - sure. These folks should be encouraged to make a good sustainable business with capital investment and all that.
M.
Old man hunter, believe me I would if i could,
the reason i dont is becasue i have a handicapped daughter that is on a very good programs through services MN offers,
My wife checked to see what fargo offered and its not as good,
even if it got better, its too late, I bought a house, heh, heh, guess I could sell.
But i used to live in fargo, and duck hunted many years around Alice,
as far as when folks talk about wages, HEY, IWORK IN FARGO.
trust me, I know what its like.
Sorry to get off the subject at hand, but this has been building up for awhile now after reading certain posts,
I think the majority dont mind NR's, and why not, I dont miind all the NR's
coming over to MN for the fishing, why would I?, Big Deal?
All I want to do is, pay my $85 and go shoot a few pheasants,
thats it,
hell if it makes anyone feel better, I only shot a big 1 this year.
anyway, needed to vent a little,
so onward and upward. :-?
the reason i dont is becasue i have a handicapped daughter that is on a very good programs through services MN offers,
My wife checked to see what fargo offered and its not as good,
even if it got better, its too late, I bought a house, heh, heh, guess I could sell.
But i used to live in fargo, and duck hunted many years around Alice,
as far as when folks talk about wages, HEY, IWORK IN FARGO.
trust me, I know what its like.
Sorry to get off the subject at hand, but this has been building up for awhile now after reading certain posts,
I think the majority dont mind NR's, and why not, I dont miind all the NR's
coming over to MN for the fishing, why would I?, Big Deal?
All I want to do is, pay my $85 and go shoot a few pheasants,
thats it,
hell if it makes anyone feel better, I only shot a big 1 this year.
anyway, needed to vent a little,
so onward and upward. :-?
Joined
·
1,124 Posts
Dano2 I appreciate your reply. It did open my eyes to the fact some people would choose to live here if they could.Your reply also made me think about the important things in life. I wish the best for you and your family. Good Luck
Hey MRN
I have read your last post several times & I want to say Yeah, that would be better. But I just can't get real fired up about how they do things up there either ??? Is it that I'm so cynical, that I believe all the same stuff happens up there, only under the table ???
But it is better - But is that because they are so huge & have so few hunters in comparsion ??? & why is that ???
I keep thinking there is something there ??? that could help us ??? But I have my doubts, that those that could make changes, are capable of seeing it ???
Frustrating - all this stuff - But one thing is for sure, my SOB hunting will be done up there - a week, or even a few days of un-hassled Freelance SOB hunting (& get it out of my system) - is worth the few inconvinces & costs - compared to what it has turned into here.
I have read your last post several times & I want to say Yeah, that would be better. But I just can't get real fired up about how they do things up there either ??? Is it that I'm so cynical, that I believe all the same stuff happens up there, only under the table ???
But it is better - But is that because they are so huge & have so few hunters in comparsion ??? & why is that ???
I keep thinking there is something there ??? that could help us ??? But I have my doubts, that those that could make changes, are capable of seeing it ???
Frustrating - all this stuff - But one thing is for sure, my SOB hunting will be done up there - a week, or even a few days of un-hassled Freelance SOB hunting (& get it out of my system) - is worth the few inconvinces & costs - compared to what it has turned into here.
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
