Why do you assume just because some one is against land leasing that they are reliant on other peoples land. I for one am against land leasing and we have our own land. There is more posting now than there was 15 years ago, I don't know how a person could even state this. As far as the resident only opener and you only seeing a few hunters out, that seems like a success to me. My hunting satisfaction goes down proportionately with the number of people I run into in the outdoors. Number of animals have nothing to do with it. I can spend a night in the treestand and not harvest a deer, but get immense joy out of the peace of quiet and the animals. When I go hunting, I go to get away from people not see a bunch of them. That is why I prefer to hunt when the chances of me having to see and hear other hunters is smaller. That is why I prefer bowhunting and muzzleloading to rifle hunting. This is the same reason I save my vacation and hunt in the middle of the week and do chores at home on the weekend. I thought the resident only duck opener was great, I did see people out enjoying it, but it was manageable. Landowner rights are fine, post the land and don't let anyone hunt it if you don't want to. However, I don't want someone making one thin dime by selling access to a public resource. The money thing gets ridiculous, there are a lot of things that would bring money into a community but some of them just cross the line into not being right. Letting people hunt is a wonderful thing, and I am not convinced that fee hunting helps anything but the initial person collecting the fee. I still believe that small towns see as much or more benefit from free lance hunters coming in and spreading the cash around a little bit. One our neighbors back home guides deer. He doesn't need any extra income, he is a bigger producer than anyone around. How much of that money actually hits town? Very little other than some grocery money. The clients bunk down at his house and his wife feeds them. Pretty much all inclusive. Have you ever thought that why we have less resident hunters now is due to the increase in nonresidents and the hassle that goes along with it. I believe that nonresident hunters have a compensatory effect and not an additive one. Look at the numbers, we don't have any more total numbers, but the nonresidents have displaced the resident hunters. Some will claim that the nonresidents are just filling in the "spots or slots" that residents are leaving. I think that as things get tougher the residents are getting pushed out and saying to hell with it. Our state population is still around 600,000, people have just moved from the rural areas to the larger towns/cities in ND.
The great conservation movement started happening at the turn of the century and then picked up during and after the great depression. The idea behind this was to preserve animals and opportunities for all people, regardless of income. There was NEVER an intent to be a financial opportunity for a few select people.