North Dakota Fishing and Hunting Forum banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
507 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This is a very small excerpt from the Hunter and Angler Expenditures, Characteristics, and Economic Effects, North Dakota, 2001-2002. You can view either an executive summary or the full text report at www.discovernd.com/gnf/info/hunt-fish-surv.html

I guess the so called economic benefits of the non-resident have been extremely overstated. 15% of the total economic effect and that includes ANGLING! On the bright side, just remember... "it is new money for the State."

Isn't it really sad that the G/Os have sold the state out for less than (I am guessing) 5 - 8% of the total economic effect generated from non-resident hunting expenditures. Nice crowd you run with Econ :eyeroll: .

Total Economic Effects
Total direct expenditures ($468.5 million) from all hunting and fishing activities in North Dakota for the 2001-2002 season generated nearly $544.9 million in secondary economic effects. The gross business volume (direct and secondary economic effects) of hunting and fishing in North Dakota was estimated at $1 billion (Table 4).

Resident and nonresident hunters spent $166.4 million on hunting activities in the state in 2001, which generated an additional $199 million in secondary economic effects. Hunting activities generated $365.4 million in gross business volume (Table 4).

Nonresident hunters and anglers spent about $65.9 million in the state in 2001, which generated an additional $84 million in secondary economic effects within the state economy. The gross business volume resulting from nonresident hunters and anglers was estimated at nearly $150 million (Table 4).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
Bioman,

You must be getting forgetful in you old age. Using the $150,000,000 in non-resident dollars. What will replace the sales tax of $7,500,000 to the state of ND, the sales tax to most cities totaling $1,500,000? Knowing you moved to California I am sure you do not understand this as I am sure you voted for Gray Davis and don't mind being over spent. Besides that you work for the Federal Government and they alway advocate over spending and deficiets. The state of ND must balance its budget so we do not have to go through what California is going thru. The above $9,000,000 is a termendous amount of money for the state to replace. Any ideas?????
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,949 Posts
Once again your logic is flawed in regardsw to the tax roll being reduced by 9m See none of want to eliminate the nonresident and the dollar amount you are trying to spin by saying needs replacing in our balance buget would still be in place with caps. The number of hunters that where here in 01-02 would have been the same this year. The other thing you fail to figure in is the loss of state income tax going to TX now that they are allowed in the state for Outfitting. Next subtract the loss of income and sales tax monies from CRP and land rent that is leaving because the nonresident hunter is being forced to buy land to hunt becasue the G/O have leased up so many acres. Now think about the loss of tax revenue that is gone because the nonresident has forced a young farmer or rancher to seek employemnt out of state because of the same issues.

If my calulations are correct a townor community needs 500 or more nonresident hunters to replace one small farm in income and tax revenue, but it only takes one non ag related purchase to eliminate that farmer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
Ron,

The land sales are a result of the great country we live in FREE ECONOMICS rule the land and should. The CRP is a poor program promegated by the so called wildlife consevationists to have more huntable game ect.

Please show me your calculations as to the amount of non-resident hunters that would have been allowed under the flawed 2048. If you are correct, then the great bioman and myself should both shut up on the report he quotes as it is mute if no one here really wants to have less than the 30,000 hunters allowed last year.

Does everyone agree to the30,000???????

Econ the invisible to Ron
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
668 Posts
I don't think it is very accurate to say that non-residents are forced to buy land. I don't remember ever hearing of a case where someone was forced to buy land. How did they do it, put a gun to their head or did they just steal the money from their checking account to pay for the land purchase.

Land prices were being driven up by farmers competing for the acreage long before the non-residents discovered North Dakota. If grain prices increase so does the cost of land and the rate for renting farmland.

If you think it is the non-resident driving young farmers and ranchers away, check out the population of North Dakota by counties over the last hundred years and you find that the exodus from the rural area started in the 1940's and has been coninuting ever since. Outmigration is not a new phenomenen, it has just reached a critical stage because so many had already left before. I remember in the 1970's legislators would campaign on the idea of saving the family farm. Today no one can really define what a family farm is anymore.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,506 Posts
The last version of 2048 widely accepted by resident sportspersons would have yielded about 27,500 licenses in 2002. Because of 1358 splitting the licenses, virtually all waterfowl licenses will now only be held by active waterfowlers. B/4 the split somewhere between 5-15% of waterfowl licenses were held by uplanders who spent the extra $10 "just in case" and probably never put a beed on a webbed-foot critter. So in 2002, the 30,000 nonresidents holding waterfowl licenses only represented something like 25,500-28,500 active waterfowlers. Randy Frost is on record as saying it's closer to the 25,500 number.

Long story short, the last version of 2048 widely accepted by resident sportspersons during last session would have produced similar and possibly higher actual non resident waterfowlers to the 30,000 fixed cap for 2002.

I don't know many sportspersons who would have accepted a fixed 30k cap, but most of us would have been willing to accept a capping format that would have, in times of good habitat conditions such as we have now, yielded the equivelant to the 30,000 fixed cap of last year.

I get a real kick out of those who can't mention HPC without placing the words "flawed" or "biased" in the same sentence. It's like if they say it nough they may even start to belive it themselves. For those who crapped on HPC for this, that or the other reason, no one, NO ONE, offered an alternative that was based upon anything like 27 years of data and designed to objectively match numbers of hunters to likely hunting opportunites.

HPC doesn't have to be the only approach - it's just that no one has come up with a better one that can be set based upon objective criteria and had a solid data background.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,949 Posts
Red label
Lamoure,Logan, Dickey, Stustman,Barnes counties have all seen land sold to nonag related people at prices 2-3 times the price that any lender would allow for farm purposes. This has forced more than one young farmer to seek other interests. I do not know your back ground or where you are from, but not since the late 70's has land sold for over $700.00 an acre that was dry land on irrigated in Lamoure or Logan counties. THis is happening today and the frequency of this is increacing. Many landowners are being solicted by real estate companies advertising buyers wanting hunting land. this is not isolated to ND one only needs to travel down I-94 to find tracs of farmland with adjacent woods or march selling for $ 1500.00 and up an acre. No farmer or rancher can compete and make it pay at those prices outside of the Red River Valley.

Your comment on the defintion of a family farm is correct to some degree, but I would bet that no one will dispute a Husband and wife with children operating 800 to 1200 acres would not qualifiy. We have an aging population and now more than 10 or 15 years ago more and more people realize that Sons and daughters are not returning to the farm because of outside competion.

Econ if ypu want free econmics on this issue then why do you not insist the same for the Lakes Region. Without goverment help you would only have one main road coming into DL. This has allowed the Region to survive by having enhanced assecc to the area. Farmers and ranchers would be fewer than today with out the disaster benifits they have recieved. Many small businesses would have closed because these poeple would have left the area. Many have taken advantage of low interst loans that gives them the edge in making it. had they had to borrow the money at stand rates many would have failed.

Now before you try and twist what I just wrote I want you to understand that I am in favor of most of the things that the tax payers have provided to the recipents. But in a true free economic world that you want they would not exist.

Here is a little tidbit for you, what will you do if it does not rain much more this fall and because of the fire index the Gov has to close the state to hunting. Will you be willing to accept that because it benifts the state or are you going to be the one crying in your beer? The fire index is high and the amount of fuel that the set weather in June brought has set this state up to be one big tinder box.

I bet that this never even crossed your mind because you have not been here when we had seasons delayed for these very reasons. It would be ironic if the first 2 weeks of waterfowl season is put on hold.

Can you here the outcry from G/O when they have to return the despoits and still have to pay the farmer. If it would not be so serious to others that are innocent of the deciet and greed that your lot has displayed I would start praying for sun and 90 degree's until the middle of OCT.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
Ron,

There you go again, assuming you know more than you do. I have lived in ND all my life and have seen the hunting season delayed by the dry conditions. If it happens it happens, that is what mother nature can do. Just like she will control all you worry so much about. I will certainly accept what the governor has to do, just as you should learn to accept his stand on letting small town ND survive with its residnent and non-resident hunters!!!!!!!!!!

On the government help. They, the elected officials, make those decisions and we can only adjust to them. As long as people in the USA want artifically cheap food, we will have subsidies. If not for these subsidies, the free market system would have you paying $7.00 for a loaf of bread ect. The outcry from the citizens would be loud. The government has kept food artificially low for as long as you or I can remember. I know you are intelligent enough to know this.

As for the roads coming into DL, you are incorrect. We would have no access from anywhere without the government assistance. This would have been fine with me as long as they paid to move the whole city as they have done in the past in other areas of the country. There is not any enhanced access to any where, the access is the same as it was or less. The survival statement you make is just that survival, nothing else. I dare you to come up here and tell the businesses in town they are better off than when this disaster started. ( bring your aromour as you will need it )

Econ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
507 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Just for the record Eric, why don't you get your facts straight, I do not work nor have I ever been employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Now on to your point about the sales tax, as usual your logic is impeccable. Since when are recreation dollars a guarantee for tax revenue from year to year? Especially when these dollars are tied to a natural resource that is cyclical. What did the local governments do before this alleged $150 million windfall of cash? I don't know, so why don't you enlighten me.

Also, why don't you do yourself a favor and actually pick up and read an article on economic growth. In almost every case, high paying, salaried jobs with benefits are the most significant causation for localized growth. Service sector jobs, like your business receive a secondary effect from this type of localized growth, but of course, you already knew that fact :eyeroll: .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
668 Posts
Mr. Gilmore:

Where I live and my background are not germane to this issue.

What is the usage of the land after it is bought by these nonag related people? Is it still used for agriculture?

Real Estate companies are also contacting landowners soliciting the sale of land to investors and other farmers and ranchers. Is it "greed" that convinces them to sell, or is it only greed if they lease the land for hunting.

You mention what a family farm is probably not, do you or anyone know or can they define what a family farm is. If we don't know what a family farm is anymore how can we say we want to preserve it?

I'm afraid I don't understand what the outside competittion is that keeps sons and daughters from returning to the farm. Maybe you could elaborate on this a bit. I have thought it was mostly due to low commodity prices and high equipment and operating costs. I know the last time I checked on a planning guide for planting crops in Kidder County and all factors were considered there was not a single commodity that generated a postive cash flow.

Two years ago my brother-in-law had the first option to purchase 480 acres of land he had been renting when the owner retired. He was looking to help his son get a start in farming and the land sold for $700.00 and acre when he thought the most it was worth was $500.00. The purchaser was not a wealthy non-resident but his neighbor who also farms.

By the way, did you ever come up with the method used to force those non-residents to buy real estate?
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top