I certainly meant you no disrespect, and apologize if I misled you to think I did. I merely disagree with your, "Somewhat sarcastic and a little pessimistic" attitude. I don't believe this is the time for an attitude such as yours. I have to say it again, and if you can demonstrate that I'm wrong, I'll be more than happy to concede the point...North Dakota RESIDENT hunters just scored a victory, and with continued consistent effort can win in the upcoming elections and in the next legislative session. BUT, we can't win if we allow ourselves a defeatist attitude even before we have an inkling of just what we've accomplished or what more is possible.
I am fully aware that we are playing hardball politics. If you haven't noticed, I use my own name and my own city. Mott is the county seat of Hettinger County, and two of three county commissioners in this county are Pat Candrian, manager of the Cannonball Co., and Lester Brackel who's land is enrolled with Cannonball. Yes sir, Mr. prairie hunter, I'm pretty cognizant of the fact that this is hardball. I think every hunter who attended any of the Advisory Board Hearings knows it's hardball, and I'm real certain that the Governor knows it's hardball!
Sir, you are a nonresident. That doesn't make you a bad person. You might be a heck of a nice guy for all I know, but being a nonresident makes you a marginal player in this hardball game. I don't want to prevent you from ever hunting in North Dakota. I don't want to prevent Cannonball from making a bunch of money. I don't begrudge any farmer whatever he can get out of the nonresidents such as yourself. But...I want North Dakota for North Dakotans. I could have taken a job in the People's Republik of Kalifornia (now that nasty reference to the bare(sic) state was certainly in poor taste and sarcastic)and I could have made more money. I chose to stay in North Dakota. You chose to leave. What North Dakota needs more than anything else is more people in our rural communities. If you move in next door to me, become a resident of North Dakota, pay your taxes here, send your kids to school here, go to the hospital and clinic here, buy your groceries here, and have a North Dakota license plate,...THEN I'll share every benefit that North Dakota has to offer. AND, I'll share it graciously and happily.
North Dakota hasn't experienced any "political" problems over the deer hunter numbers because the nonresident numbers are restricted by statute. If those restrictions were to be lifted, we'd soon have as big a mess over deer hunting as we currently have over ducks and pheasants. I'm sorry you can't always draw a deer permit in North Dakota, and I hope you have a wonderful enjoyable hunt in Montana or Idaho.
There are a lot of folks working very hard to cloud the wildlife related issues in North Dakota. But the conflict is simply between the commercial hunting interests and the resident hunters. This isn't an east/west issue, this isn't a biological issue, this isn't a landowner/sportsmen issue, this isn't even a resident/nonresident issue. This is a conflict between the commercial hunting interests and the sportsmen. And yes, there is a lot of history in North Dakota, but this is the present and the future.
I don't care to argue with you, prairie hunter, as it can serve no positive purpose, but the hunter numbers you reported are not accurate. I spoke to the Game & Fish Dept just last week and obtained these numbers from them. The 2001 numbers are not yet compiled, so the best information is from 2000. In 2000 there were 34,443 resident small game licenses sold, and 34,401 nonresident small game licenses sold. As hunters must have that stamp to hunt either upland or waterfowl, those must be the maximum possible numbers. Those numbers most likely increased in 2001, but according to Game&Fish we have no data upon which we can base any 2001 numbers, and guesses don't count for much, no matter who's making them.
I am confident that I fully comprehend your earlier posts, and again, I must respectfully disagree with your statement that, "My main point is the guides will work the legislative session to maintain or grow their income." I agree with you that the commercial interests will be lobbying their brains silly and checkbooks flat, but I don't think that was really your main point. It seems to me your main point was that those interests had the money and power to prevail. I am sure you're wrong, and I can cite the strongest and most current illustration of my viewpoint: The Governor of the State of North Dakota just reversed his decision that had benefited the commercial interests! It sure seems logical that if the sportsmen of this state can convince the Governor to rescind a months old decision, then we sure ought to be able to convince our legislators to institute some regulations that will return some semblance of balance to the situations in this state.
prairie hunter, I do agree with your statement that, "you talk/write way too much", and I'm ashamed that I follow your lead and talk/write too much in response, so let me make just one more short comment in explanation of your post relating to hunting promotion in North Dakota. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY! Wildlife management for MONEY!
Lastly, prairie hunter, I would like to reiterate my position that I mean you no disrespect, only honest disagreement.
PS Where did you say you're from, "prairie hunter", I must have missed it.