just read this over on the game and fish site, it would limit small game licenses to one 10 day period or 2 5 day periods for nonresidents, but then it says they can buy more than one license??? does that mean they can buy 2 licenses and hunt 2 10 day periods and 4 5 day periods?? i don't see how that could be right, because that defeats the purpose of the bill
HB 1358
1 - 20 of 55 Posts
Joined
·
1,871 Posts
At least the guys that "move" to ND in the Fall for the purpose of upland hunting would have to anti up an additional $100.00 or so every 2 weeks.
Like the guys around SW ND that visit for 8-10 weeks every Fall and "help" their friends find good hunting spots. No outfitters license, only donations to the local economy in exchange for tying up all the land for their friends. The majority of NR upland hunters, at least the ones that use outfitters are hear for an average of 5 days and wouldn't see much of a change. I think the average freelance guy from the border cities would be effected more and probably wouldn't purchase more than one license a year. I'd bet you just wouldn't see the NRs after the 1st 4 weeks or so of the season. Even though I make moerate income, I would really have to think about buying another license for myself and both of my sons.
Like the guys around SW ND that visit for 8-10 weeks every Fall and "help" their friends find good hunting spots. No outfitters license, only donations to the local economy in exchange for tying up all the land for their friends. The majority of NR upland hunters, at least the ones that use outfitters are hear for an average of 5 days and wouldn't see much of a change. I think the average freelance guy from the border cities would be effected more and probably wouldn't purchase more than one license a year. I'd bet you just wouldn't see the NRs after the 1st 4 weeks or so of the season. Even though I make moerate income, I would really have to think about buying another license for myself and both of my sons.
Just to repeat what tsodak said before - alot of Legislators I don't think even read their emails. Or take them serious. I well written letter, or call are more effective - But I still send emails or print the email & mail it too.
& we need to keep this up & ask all to support us - this needs to be a over-whelming year of support from real Hunters. & people who want to see the truth & real help for rural towns - Before it's too late.
& we need to keep this up & ask all to support us - this needs to be a over-whelming year of support from real Hunters. & people who want to see the truth & real help for rural towns - Before it's too late.
Joined
·
846 Posts
Children under 16 can hunt for resident rates if the NR's home state has reciprocity (ie MN). There is a bill in the ND legislature to eliminate the reciprocity requirement and let all youngsters hunt at the lower cost.
PH
PH
Joined
·
1,507 Posts
You're right on, rap. Everyone, contact the HNRC telling them you support the additional income 1223 will bring to the SW in certain years but that we need some relief from certain relatively few but high-impact border hunters who compete with us over, and over and over on the shrinking amount of available ground. Only way to do this is to amend 1358 for a one license feature. Good compromise would be one license, with 3 5's, where one can be used b/4 the pheas opener or after 12/01, that way landowners with nonresident children would still have a very meaningful and flexible opportunity to hunt back at home.
Joined
·
846 Posts
HB 1358 - (Introduced by Rep's Porter, Carlson, Hanson, Nelson; Sen's Fischer, Tollefson) - Would amend the North Dakota Century Code relating to nonresident hunting and fishing licenses and fees. The nonresident small game license would entitle a nonresident to hunt small game for any period of 10 consecutive days or any two periods of five consecutive days each. A nonresident would be allowed to purchase more than one nonresident small game license per year. A nonresident small game license would not be required to hunt waterfowl. A nonresident small game license would cost $100 and a nonresident waterfowl license would cost $100. Nonresident fishing licenses would increase to $32 for a season license, $20 for a seven day license, $15 for a three day license, and $45 for a husband and wife. HNRC amended to make the small game license fee $85 and the waterfowl license fee $85. Reported back do-pass.
So, Is the fee $85 then?
Dan B. I like your idea about the 3-5's.
Quite frankly I cant believe this one passed as I didn't think there was that big of an issue with the upland, just the waterfowl I thought was the main concern along with land access ofcourse and your guides and outfitters.
But, I dont see this decision helping with THAT issue much anyway,
alls it does is kick the NR freelance hunter in the nuts ,
these other NR's with the big $$ that use the guides,outfitters, probably only come to ND for about that time frame anyway
Dan B. I like your idea about the 3-5's.
Quite frankly I cant believe this one passed as I didn't think there was that big of an issue with the upland, just the waterfowl I thought was the main concern along with land access ofcourse and your guides and outfitters.
But, I dont see this decision helping with THAT issue much anyway,
alls it does is kick the NR freelance hunter in the nuts ,
these other NR's with the big $$ that use the guides,outfitters, probably only come to ND for about that time frame anyway
You're exactly right Dano.North Dakota is becoming a playground for the rich only.The point you made about the rich guys being able to afford it and the average guy not being able to is the most interesting point.You see, the tourism industry is "on the same side" with the outfitting industry, and the tourism industry doesn't even realize when they're getting screwed. At least thats assuming that they rely on the freelance hunters.
Joined
·
846 Posts
Splitting the licenses is a good idea. Will enable ND G&F to get a better picture of who is hunting what.
The $85 each for waterfowl and upland will be a burden to many NRs. A few will no longer hunt both - but most will still come if the quality is there.
Guess you can not blame ND they are just jumping on the bandwagon.
MT big game, SD birds, Iowa turkey and deer - everyone wants a bigger share and this eventually forces some out. NR fishing keeps going up too.
Canada prairie provinces may eventually also follow with an increase license fees - when they see what is going on in USA.
So as everyone ramps of the license fees, some hunters will have to be more selective in what they chose to pursue (can not do everything they want every year) others will simply open their wallet.
A good point that is still out there is NR youth can hunt in ND for resident rates if their home state offers the same deal. Dads are not burdened with heavy fees for their kids too.
The $85 each for waterfowl and upland will be a burden to many NRs. A few will no longer hunt both - but most will still come if the quality is there.
Guess you can not blame ND they are just jumping on the bandwagon.
MT big game, SD birds, Iowa turkey and deer - everyone wants a bigger share and this eventually forces some out. NR fishing keeps going up too.
Canada prairie provinces may eventually also follow with an increase license fees - when they see what is going on in USA.
So as everyone ramps of the license fees, some hunters will have to be more selective in what they chose to pursue (can not do everything they want every year) others will simply open their wallet.
A good point that is still out there is NR youth can hunt in ND for resident rates if their home state offers the same deal. Dads are not burdened with heavy fees for their kids too.
Joined
·
1,507 Posts
D2, don't think I follow the reasoning. 1358 would give you one 10-day period or two five-day periods to hunt pheasants. Finding birds in the pheasant belts is no mystery. Quality cover + food + water - excessive pressure = birds. You shouldn't need a bunch of extra days just to find birds.
Now access is a different thing, but these days, unless you confine your hunting to public areas, access isn't something to take care of while on the hunt anyhow. And, if you didn't work on access until you got there, you can't get what access you can and get in all the hunting you want in 5 days? How long of a trip does it take to get this done? I know you're less than thrilled about 1385, but I'm not sure what it is about 1358 that's going to drive you or anyone else to an outfitter?
Increased license fees are a funny thing. They are hugely complained about, but rarely affect hunting demand, particularly when they're moderate and in line with neighboring states. ND had lagged way behind in license prices, and 1358 puts us close/just behind other states with equal or less quality hunting. 1358 is also important so that commerce in the duck belts is better assured that available waterfowl licenses are being bought by actual watefowl hunters.
If I still lived in the Twin Towns, I'd probably be grumbling about 1358 too. Then, next fall, when starting my third upland trip, I'd plunk another $85 down and buy my second license. 1358 would provide me no motivation to head to an outfitter.
Now access is a different thing, but these days, unless you confine your hunting to public areas, access isn't something to take care of while on the hunt anyhow. And, if you didn't work on access until you got there, you can't get what access you can and get in all the hunting you want in 5 days? How long of a trip does it take to get this done? I know you're less than thrilled about 1385, but I'm not sure what it is about 1358 that's going to drive you or anyone else to an outfitter?
Increased license fees are a funny thing. They are hugely complained about, but rarely affect hunting demand, particularly when they're moderate and in line with neighboring states. ND had lagged way behind in license prices, and 1358 puts us close/just behind other states with equal or less quality hunting. 1358 is also important so that commerce in the duck belts is better assured that available waterfowl licenses are being bought by actual watefowl hunters.
If I still lived in the Twin Towns, I'd probably be grumbling about 1358 too. Then, next fall, when starting my third upland trip, I'd plunk another $85 down and buy my second license. 1358 would provide me no motivation to head to an outfitter.
Joined
·
505 Posts
Dano2:
As a non-resident, I don't feel like the increased fees are a big deal. Simply stated, these fees put No.Dak. on the same playing field as most states. After all, if $170 buys only one memorable hunt with my friends over a ten day period ($17 a day versus something like ski lift tickets at $60 a day?), can you really put a price tag on a life long memory (especially one captured on film)? Add to that a first hunt with your son or daughter? Truly priceless.
As a non-resident, I don't feel like the increased fees are a big deal. Simply stated, these fees put No.Dak. on the same playing field as most states. After all, if $170 buys only one memorable hunt with my friends over a ten day period ($17 a day versus something like ski lift tickets at $60 a day?), can you really put a price tag on a life long memory (especially one captured on film)? Add to that a first hunt with your son or daughter? Truly priceless.
With 1307 and 2048 taking the limelight there hasn't been much said about the upland bills.I find it interesting that the waterfowl laws allow 14 days or 2 seven day periods for a season that lasts 40-50 days and upland would be only 10 days or 2 five day periods.Yet pheasant season last twice as long at almost 100 days and grouse season is over 100.
Therefore,I agree with Dan.I would like to see at least 3 five day periods.
Therefore,I agree with Dan.I would like to see at least 3 five day periods.
Joined
·
2,941 Posts
Ken and Dan please educate me on the 3-5's I can see where this will make very little difference on pressure and would make it better for the famliy members that come home for the holidays. What other benefits do you see with this change.
The draw back from a freinds point of view is that it adds more pressure during the first three weekends. THat it will encourage more leasing of land etc...
Ron
The draw back from a freinds point of view is that it adds more pressure during the first three weekends. THat it will encourage more leasing of land etc...
Ron
Joined
·
1,507 Posts
I would favor the three-fives only if the multiple license feature were dropped and one of the threes had to used b/4 pheas opener or after 12/1. Net effect: any nonresident still gets a lot of hunting opportunities for $85; nonresident family of landowners or others with strong ND roots (who we call "favored sons") can hunt 3 of: grouse trip, pheas opener, Thanksgiving, and Christmas, all for one $85 rather than two; we take some pressure off the real hot periods and spread it to the less pressured periods (although in the area I hunt there's not much time anymore where there isn't a fairly high amount of pressure); and we take some pressure off the non-fee ground from a relatively small but greatly affecting percentage of nonresidents who make trip, after trip, after trip each fall and tend to also focus on and compete heavily with residents for the shrinking amount of non-fee ground.
Outfitters have not spoke strongly against a proposal like this in the past becuase their average customer is a one-trip, four-day guy. Hopefully general hospitality would see that days lost from the heavy-use nonresidents will be made up by residents who have given up on some of the better areas.
But a criticism of some resident hunters is somewhat valid here and needs to be considered. The days of section after section of unposted productive ground are gone. If any relief is otained, it will still be important for residents to make the effort to knock on doors and make phone calls. Lots of us already do so, so we know that personal landowner contact isn't a substitute for getting some relief from hunter-days in today's environment, but if we get some relief, to get access you're going to need to ask. Like I said, I think most residents now do ask a lot, but I hear a few that talk about driving around looking for unposted ground. Great if you can find it, but often times a posted sign with a phone number is just as good.
All that said, we'll have to look long and hard whether we try to interject changes into 1358. I think the above changes would turn 1358 from a good bill to a great bill (something there for a lot of different people). But, unless we think it would fly, prudance may dictate that we leave 1358 alone so as not to put the whole enchilada at risk.
Outfitters have not spoke strongly against a proposal like this in the past becuase their average customer is a one-trip, four-day guy. Hopefully general hospitality would see that days lost from the heavy-use nonresidents will be made up by residents who have given up on some of the better areas.
But a criticism of some resident hunters is somewhat valid here and needs to be considered. The days of section after section of unposted productive ground are gone. If any relief is otained, it will still be important for residents to make the effort to knock on doors and make phone calls. Lots of us already do so, so we know that personal landowner contact isn't a substitute for getting some relief from hunter-days in today's environment, but if we get some relief, to get access you're going to need to ask. Like I said, I think most residents now do ask a lot, but I hear a few that talk about driving around looking for unposted ground. Great if you can find it, but often times a posted sign with a phone number is just as good.
All that said, we'll have to look long and hard whether we try to interject changes into 1358. I think the above changes would turn 1358 from a good bill to a great bill (something there for a lot of different people). But, unless we think it would fly, prudance may dictate that we leave 1358 alone so as not to put the whole enchilada at risk.
1 - 20 of 55 Posts
