North Dakota Fishing and Hunting Forum banner
1 - 20 of 41 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
324 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
first of all, i have to start by saying you have some great information on this site about the legislative session coming up! great job! i just quickly read the hunting pressure concept the jud. b committee is suggesting... I'm wondering how likely you guys think it is that this will get passed? i remember hearing about it alot when hoeven put the cap at 30,000 and i thought maybe that 30,000 cap was the end to the discussion. i'm glad to hear the hunter pressure concept is still an active idea! hopefully this gets passed, it seems like it should since it is suggested by BIOLOGISTS!!! any ideas on this??
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,506 Posts
I feel good about the HPC's chances this session. With a strong backing from many individuals and sportspersons groups, the Judiciary B supported it on a 15-2 vote. Of the 15, many were rural legislators.

The "let 'em all in" folks can dislike the number it produces this or any year, but they can't disagree with the logic. The HPC ensures the historic tourism pipline is filled every year, merely adjusting nonresident numbers for wetland conditions and the number of resident hunters. The HPC would have this year and will many years produce a nonresident cap higher than surveys have shown most resident hunters want. In that sense, it's the perfect compromise, because nobody got entirely what they wanted.

Another key feature of the HPC is that it is truly a one-time fix. If we've learned nothing else, it's that this cap stuff is contentious, divisive and a political hot potatoe. The "Nelson Plan" or any other fixed cap method must adjust when water conditions or resident numbers change. Any required adjustment will drag us through this difficult process again, and again, and again....... The HPC, on the other hand, is a dynamic cap that automatically makes necessary adjustments without the involvement of anyone other than the data gatherers. It is, then, the perfect, one-time solution.

ND Sportspersons and those nonres sportspersons who want ND to once again become the premier waterfowl state that it once was, please begin promoting the HPC. ND's talk to all candidates now from your district and ask them if they support the HPC. If they're not familiar with the HPC, educate them. If they support the HPC, send them to Bismarck this winter!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
842 Posts
Before I start here I want to reiterate that I liked the idea of the 22,000 cap. I still like the idea of the 22,000 NR cap. Those that plan ahead have no problem.

Not sure if it needs to go below that even if the HP model says it should.

Anyway ... a new question to those who care to discuss ... Economics 101 ?

When a resident spends money (again I agree they do ... my family spent a LOT of money when I was growing up in ND each fall hunting ... hotels, gas, extra box of shells, meals). But as we were spending dad's money it was money already in ND. We were simply recycling dollars already in ND. Guess we moved it from the city mouse to the country mouse ... but these $$$ were already in this state.

When a NR spends money in ND this money is NEW money in ND. It is new money that enters from other regions of the country. It is new money spent and taxed in ND that now starts recycling through ND too.

NR hunters bring new cash to ND.

Took a few economic courses in college, but that does not make me an economist. Anyone care to comment on the impact of this new money vs the recycling of money already in ND.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
537 Posts
PH

Your argument about new dollars vs. recycled dollars is familiar here in Minnesota. The anti-stadium folks bring in all the consultants that say that the money the Twins and Vikings bring in is only money that would be spent at some other recreational venue. Therefore, there is really no economic benefit derived from the Twins and Vikings.

However, there are folks from North Dakota and other parts of the Midwest that go to Vikings games. They are bringing new money into the economy that would not otherwise be spent in Minnesota. If the Vikings weren't here, the ND folks might spend their money in Fargo, Bismarck, Winnipeg, or Las Vegas. So, there is some economic benefit to Minnesota.

I guess that I would agree with you that non-resident hunters do bring new money into the state of North Dakota. But, it gets a little tricky trying to quantify that influx of dollars.

Do NRs spend as much money as residents? Some have said they don't.

Does the influx of NRs push some ND dollars out of the state when the North Dakotan decides not to hunt and goes to Las Vegas on vacation or drives to the Mall of America to spend some of his money on that stuff rather than hunting? Then, how much is North Dakota gaining?

I guess I would not pursue this issue very much. It is just too difficult to quantify the advantages and disadvantages. However, there are professional market research people in my company that would enjoy a $200,000 contract to help North Dakota figure this out if they really want to get into it. :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
842 Posts
Its a really big envelope that I have mailed onto this site.

Food for thought though huh ??

I know it flies right in the face of the moderator on this Hot Topics page who tends to argue its a way of life that we are talking about protecting not just money.

Perry, maybe I should shut up and sit back and simply watch. Some of the ideas that I present across this site will certainly be used in Bismarck 2003 - by both sides.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Perry, I wouldn't spend a nickle on the Vikings this year! They stink!! The Twins on the other hand, hip-hip-hurray!! Any deer this year guys?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,582 Posts
Are not dollars dollars ??? If I (from Eastern ND) go to Western ND & spend $500 on hunting - or a NR from East Grand Forks Minn. goes there & spends $500 - You think they know or care which side of the river the US Dollar came from ???

Now if a NonResidents goes out there & spends his $500 on a outfitter that also provides meals - drinks - lodging & transportation to fields (maybe even shells & bird cleaning :roll: ) & dog :roll: I wonder how much this helps the local economy compared to the freelancer that spends a little at all these in town businesses ???

& by having so many trying to come out there at the same time for a few short weeks - full is full :roll:

I wonder if these folks will ever see the light ??? :roll:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
84 Posts
I agree with Fetch- dollars are dollars-end of story. I spend a great deal of resident money in rural North Dakota in the fall during hunting season. However, from December through April I will spend a great deal of money snowmobiling in Wyoming. Not much to do in old Dakota from January - May??

In summary- if Prairie Hunter comes to ND with new dollars in the fall and spends it- chances are that a ND resident will use that money outside of ND sometime in the near future. I know alot of ND residents that go to Pheonix for the winter, or Florida, or a cruise, Ect. Ect. The bottom line is what comes in doesn't always stay in!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
842 Posts
So the outfitter makes so much big time money that he takes the NR money and places in his investment stock portfolio held in NY. Thus the money is never in ND too long. Well that works too I guess.

The economy of ND requires that good, services, and money flow into the state and goods, services, and money flow out of the state. Each state needs interstate commerce just like the world needs global trade. ND does not print money so they need to earn it from somewhere.

Each state has built in efficiencies due to population, location, and natural resources.

Last time I looked, there were no cars, small appliances, blue jeans, guns, boats, decoys, or waders made in ND. All brought in from somewhere else.

ND is an agricultural state with some natural gas and oil thrown in for good measure. Much lignite mined in ND anymore ? ND exports a lot of grain, oil, etc... It would be nice if more grain or sugar processing plants like those in Hillsboro, Carrington, Velva, Enderlin (still open?) would be developed by more aggressive local businessmen and city/county leaders. Move a little further up the food chain and employ more local people to boot.

Small equipment and building component manufacturing also works in ND. If Fargo can pull Marvin, why can't other cities aggressively work to get other companies to relocate in ND. How about medical parts manufacturing - these components are small, easy to ship, and carry high margin. Location of manufacture should not be that important. ND could fit the bill here too.

Not easy, not easy at all, but how many civic leaders are really trying anymore to think outside the box and really save ND ?

I have got my self in trouble before on this site, but I am pretty sure ND takes a whole lot more Federal money than it puts in. Including or even not including federal grain subsidies. Long term this is not a good position for ND to be in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
537 Posts
No, a dollar is not a dollar. That's what the balance of payments and international trade deficits are all about. A successful economy is one that is bringing in more dollars through trade or businesses than it is spending somewhere else. (We don't want to send all our dollars to Japan to buy their cars, but we sure would like to sell them as many Microsoft products and durum wheat as possible. That brings in new dollars to our economy.) So, if NRs could bring in a lot of new money, the economics experts will say that the state is better off financially.

But, as I said above, the inflow and outflow of dollars is very hard to measure and is really not worth arguing about, but it is good food for thought.

BTW - I sure like the new background on the web site. Now, my tired old eyes don't have to squint at the page. Thanks, Chris.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Not that I am jumping on the band wagon for Outfitters.

But before you say that they don't help the local economy think about this. If you or a NR use that Outfiiter you are paying $500.00 for food, lodging and a guide. That $500.00 is helping pay for at least 3 jobs plus keeping a business running. Same can be said if you spend it freelance accept you are problably paying the businesses direct . So in that respect the moneys probably effects the local economy the same, accept if your paying a Outfitter the local farmers are getting lease payments too, which unless you pay to get on land isn't happening.

I still feel the best way to approach this is regulate the Outfitters and charging Farmers by requiring them to offer a percentage of public access for every leased acre. And require them to keep books on charged hunts, so no funning business can happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
352 Posts
Definetly true. But freelancers spread the money around the town. The big outfitters have everything available through the lodge, so at times they are maybe filling up their gas tanks as they go out of town. Freelancers stay at a hotel, eat at various restaurants, drink at the local bar, and so on.

I don't necessarily think the money issue is as big as so many claim. No matter what, there will be people spending money around each fall. The balance over the years show when the NR's aren't here, the residents are on the countryside and vice versa. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a good economy base one that has a good inflow of $ from the taxpayers? Why strip the one resource that's beneficial to being a resident and sell it out when we could be putting all that effort bringing in more companies, factories, and industries? That would offer more jobs to the smaller communities.

Thanks for reading.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
507 Posts
Since I have been involved with development of various projects (primarily energy) in 23 western states (even NoDak), I have learned a thing or two about economic development over the years. First off, hunting dollars are nothing more than seasonal tourism dollars. This has been the biggest misnomer that has been generated over the entire non-resident debate. Tourism dollars support service sectors within the existing local economy (restaurants, hotels, etc.), and depending on their permanence may or may not create permanent jobs. Without a long-winded dissertation, economic development is the generation of new, permanent jobs. Further, if these jobs are around the national median wage then even better.

An example: if I am developing a $300 million power plant in North Dakota, what has more long term economic value: the construction of the plant which brings in temporary money from the construction phase or the creation of 100 permanent jobs to run the plant?

Construction of the power plant would be fulfilled by unions that supply skilled laborers, which most likely wouldn't employ very many local people, so there wouldn't be new permanent construction jobs (of course there would be some hiring locally, but not to a major extent). Second, most of the products used to build the plant would be fabricated and shipped from other areas (not enough local infrastructure to support this type of project). Third, the construction money would not support infrastructure requirements (e.g., schools, sewer, etc.) needed to support the local government. Fourth, (and the main point of post) the real development is the commercial and industrial development that is needed to support the 400 families moving into an area to fill those permanent positions.

To further illustrate my point, the power plant will provide a very large annual tax payment to the local government to provide a healthy infrastructure to attract those local employees to buy homes in their jurisdiction. The new employees buy the homes, which supports the bank lenders. The homeowners need services for their homes, so they go to a local hardware store to purchase items. In essence, the new jobs drive a local economy to provide services for their money. It is the creation of permanent jobs that spur local development. Look at Beulah and Hazen for prime examples. Without lignite mining, there would not be a Beulah or Hazen. I think you get the idea.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Fetch, to most rural western ND, they would agree that a dollar is a dollar and are more than happy to have free-lance hunters spend money. It is a misconception that they don't want free-lancers. We have gone over this many times and I agree that most (the vast majority) of free-lance hunters are good and honorable citizens and obey all laws and regulations and are considerate to those whom they deal with while on hunting trips (provided their favorite hole isn't occupied).

I think you are close on your analysis of a fee hunter paying $500 and a free lancer paying $500. What you seem to be saying is that you spend your $500 and that should count for you and your contribution to the economy, but the money that a fee-hunter spends shouldn't.

The fact is that if an outfitter provides food, lodging, transportation, etc. then this has to be bought from someone. If not, then it is a monopoly and you should take it to federal court for breaking anti-trust laws. What the outfitter is doing is playing "middle-man." He is taking the money and making the hunter right one check (or credit card purchase) and paying off these various services that are already in the town and are helping them pay bills. It is seasonal tourism income, but it is the only thing keeping many of the towns out here alive. There isn't a "Christmas Rush" in a town of fewer than 500 people.

Let's say that the company doesn't farm out these services to established businesses. They do them themselves. Where does the food come from? Are they also ranchers raising their own cattle? No, they are going to buy it. If they know what they are doing, they will buy it locally, or landowners who don't want to see their town die will "black ball" them and refuse them access to land. The money still goes to the local grocer to buy these products. Maybe not all the meals are provided by the outfitter. Then the NR will have to go to eat at the local restaurant/cafe.

Now, let's stretch our minds and consider "What if the outfitter is local?" Let's say he charges $500 per day of hunting. Of that he "farms out" $450 and keeps the other $50 for themselves. If they are local, then that is money that is reprocessed into the economy. That is money that they will use to make purchases in town (maybe extra gas, more groceries, etc.) It's funny, when people get money, they tend to spend it. That is how small town economies work.

North Dakota is a natural resources state. We don't get many people coming here for the climate. They don't come here for the pay (no one in ND is paid significantly more than they would get elsewhere, even just across one border). ND economy depends on its natural resources, whether that is coal, oil, agriculture, or outdoor activities. While there may be instances of outfitters hurting local economies, there are also instances of them helping local economies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,582 Posts
well again you miss the othersides points.

I doubt many small towns are going to be saved by the income from outfitters & if $500 is spent I doubt the town is getting $450 :roll:

Like in the analogy- If the $500 came from FL residents or FL non residents just about all of the $500 goes to the town ??? (motel - gas - food - cafes- bars - etc.) No need for middle men - & no larger tracts of land have to be leased & posted - & made off limits to the residents & Non residents - that want to freelance. Now you have mainly NR's and some sorry people like fast Eddy :eyeroll: I bet there are 10 to 1 (or higher ???) more Freelance hunters. So the way it is now, only a few should have access to hunt - where most of the birds are (go read Dick Monsons post again) Here it is :
how & why Pay to hunt folks operate Westerner, In 1992 I visted one one of the first people to go into commercial hunting at Mott. He gave us permission to hunt that year, but told us next year most ground would be leased in the area. I asked him why the commercial firm would need so many acres? His reply was that if people had a place to hunt at no charge, they would not need an outfitter.
His group was in effect "buying out the competition" and raising the price, in the same way that any other business buys out a competeing business, and then closes them, leaving the consumer at that buyers mercy, in this case the outfitters mercy.

The second business tactic that the outfitters must have is saturation liscenseing . They accomplish it by having an unlimited number of nonresident liscenses for sale by NDGF, NRs being the target market, as few residents will pay. Saturation liscenseing assures that any habitat not leased will quickly be pounded to dust by large numbers of freelance hunters. And the birds will move to the least pressured areas, the leased land.

The third tactic commercial hunting uses is aggressive advertiseing aimed at NRs with the full assistance of the North Dakota Tourism Dept. The ad campaign assures the saturation of avialable open habitat by hunters.
No concern for Residents wanting to hunt pheasants ??? Be able to get a motel room ??? Why would we want to go out there & drive around & beg to hunt - be turned down - hunt what little that is available & overhunted by both the residents & NR's that still keep trying ???

I don't get your blind approach & attitude ??? Be Happy your winning - Lets see what it does for your town down the road ??? I just hope not all are as blind and heartless :eyeroll:

Also this is why limits have to be implemented - your winning, so now something has to be done to keep us Freelance hunters from coming out there & bothering you :roll: :******: :eyeroll:

YOU KEEP SAYING IT"S CONCERN FOR SAVING THE TOWNS, IS THE MAIN GOAL ??? :roll: Get real - it's about BIG BUCKS for a few at a great loss to many.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Fetch, I seriously doubt, but I guess I can't prove, that you spend $500 per day when you go hunting. The fact is that when "resident sportsmen" spend their money, it isn't necessarily in the small town. Until fee hunting came to our part of the world there was relatively little economic impact from hunting. Maybe it is different in other parts of the state. I will not claim to speak on their behalf. But in the SW corner most of the "resident sportsmen" came to town with relatively full tanks of gas, coolers of beer and lunch meat, did their hunting and left. In the SW, fee-hunting has brought in people who fly in from around the country. They don't bring anything but their clothes and gun (usually not even shells). They fly in and buy everything locally. If they are staying at a B&B they may not buy the food directly, but you better believe that the B&B does. That is a lot of extra gallons of milk for breakfasts. These hunters go out to eat because they can't make it a "day-trip" and come down for the day carrying their provisions with them.

Finally, what does a "resident sportsmen" always do for the community that a "NR sportsmen" won't. The fact is that at least with "fee-hunting" there is money guaranteed to be going into the farmers hand. Even if all the other money goes out of town (which I don't think happens nearly as often as you believe).

As for the "friend" near Mott this has not happened. Who is the big company that is leasing up all this land? The largest one I know of in the "Mott area" is the Cannonball Company. If outfitters are going to claim to be making an economic impact, don't you think that I would have heard of this company? I have talked to people around Regent/Mott and they haven't heard of it. The largest one, by far, is the Cannonball Company, and if you ever wonder, why don't you call them (the 1-800 number is on their website). Ask! Ask how they run their business. I have done it. They lease exactly 0 acres. The land is always under the direct control of the landowner. The landowner agrees to allow hunters onto that land under guides from the company (this way, they have some control over the activities of their "guests"). If you talk to the bed and breakfasts, they will tell you that they spend $$$ on food for their guests at the local grocery store. All the vehicles for the company are filled at local gas stations. The company provides no shells to anyone, they have to buy them from local vendors or bring them along. They have had opportunities to make their business run on a larger scale and hire large out-of-state firms to run their business. They declined because then money would be leaving the local area. All the money stays local. I don't bring this up necessarily to indicate that this is necessarily typical for businesses across the state (I won't pretend that I have done an exhaustive survey) but to refute your copied text from another post about "buying out the competition." All of the contracts are 1 year deals and are renewed annually. If this is hurting the small town economies so much, why don't more businesses complain. Why aren't the landowners complaining about the lousy payment's they get for their land. If people are getting so rich, why aren't there more nice houses going up? More signs of these few people making lots of money and the rest of the town rotting away. Let me assure you that if this were happening, there would be a much louder stink in this part of the world. Lots of money is coming in, and lots of people are getting a piece.

If you check on the internet for other "guides/outfitters" in the west, most are small operations. A couple of landowners and businessmen pooling their resources.

I have said many times that I am in favor of charging higher rates to non-residents, or even having a separate license for those who come in for fee-hunting purposes. If you think it makes good business sense to sell as many licenses as possible for fee hunting, that is flatly not true. If they do, as you suggest, want to cater to high paying customers, these people are used to getting what they pay for. They are not interested in paying for "McDonald's" type mass production. Like when choosing where to eat, you don't pay much to go to McDonald's and the food indicates that. It is produced for mass market. If that is what you want, you will not pay much for it. Fee-hunting companies watch carefully the number of hunters they have on land (or they don't exist for long).

The whole thing reminds me of a story I heard. A Jewish man in a small small village in Russia at the turn of the century subscribed to an anti-semitic publication. When his friends asked him why he read all that rubbish he said, "When I am having a bad day, it helps me feel better to see how powerful I am." The moral of the story is that people tend to ascribe great power to those they don't understand and portray themselves as a somehow "oppressed majority."

I understand why you are frustrated with the current situation. There is very little land available in the SW corner of the state. Most of it is posted "No Hunting" (not necessarily because of membership in a fee-hunting company). I think it would be far wiser to ask "Why are their fewer hunting opportunities" than simply saying "If we get rid of fee-hunting or place more restrictions on it the that land will be open." Unlike with some waterfowl who damage crops, pheasant are seen as, at worst, benign. They don't harm anything. Placing restrictions on fee-hunting will not open any of the land that is now closed to hunters. The land would still be locked up and farmers/ranchers would be even less interested in allowing free-lance hunters onto their land. To come at this and determine who the enemy is and attack is unwise since, the fact is, you may be incorrect.

Land was being locked up in the SW part of the state before fee-hunting ever started. Hunting companies didn't suddenly show up, tell farmers they could make a ton of money ("to heck with the rest of the town"), and suddenly all the farmers put their land into a couple of huge fee-hunting companies who quickly took the money and ran leaving everyone high and dry. If that were happening the politics of this would be extremely different.

"No concern for Residents wanting to hunt pheasants ??? Be able to get a motel room ???" I do have a question about this statement in your post. What hunting companies own these hotels? If the hotel is sold out, isn't that good for the local economy? Wouldn't it make sense that if you had called earlier they would have had room for you? From the sounds of that paragraph it doesn't sound like you have/had any intention of coming to these towns and supporting their economy. If you plan to, I suggest you call ahead and make arrangments. Believe me, there are lots of pheasant still out there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,582 Posts
Fee-hunting companies watch carefully the number of hunters they have on land (or they don't exist for long).
This is why I no longer go out west to hunt. Freelance hunting only exsists as Dick Monson described.( Thats not for me) & because of this trend Freelance hunting will not exist for long.

Your right Westerner - why are you so defensive & worried ???

Obvisouly you don't need the people who live in the bigger cities ??? You can do it all alone (exsist) Fee hunting will save your way of life :roll:

They won't buy their groceries, the same places that resturants & grocery stores do (now ??? or someday ???) to increase profits ??? :roll:

I always ate Breakfast & Supper in the towns I stayed in & always went to the local grocery to get lunch & snacks.

When I did go out there - I almost always made reservations - But one of the last times, my room (the second night of 3) was given to someone else ??? - even though I secured it with a Credit Card. & there were hunters lined up begging for rooms in the lobby. & everything was full plus many camping & sleeping in their vehicles. (at least the 1st couple weeks of the season) - this is why zones & limits how many per zone - per week makes sense.

Finally, what does a "resident sportsmen" always do for the community that a "NR sportsmen" won't.
Pay taxes in the State - that does alot more to help keep your towns stay alive than Fee hunting. We used to lobby for & vote for things that help agriculture in the State. Alot of us indirectly work & provide services for all residents of ND - Healthcare - Entertainment - the companies related to agriculture - the stores that most of you travel to to shop, instead of supporting your local merchants :roll: , cause you like variety & styles like the rest of the country- Work in Government that provides countless services to all of ND - Roads & highways - Educate your children after high school - provide services to defense & law enforcement of our state & country - work in banking & finance that is rarely local anymore - provide energy (pay for pipelines to provide water) & fertilizer & chemicals that is rarely local anymore - Provide services & jobs for your old friends & your children, that could no longer remain & work for the fee hunting companies & all their spin off economic benefits :roll: I could go on & on ???

Have you read Curt Wells article in this month's Dakota Country ??? It is more about the future than past or present.

As far as Big Bucks do the math (how many hunter X how much per day X for how many days) I think alot would be amazed how much is taken in - & who gets the most.

I'm all for B&B (bed & Breakfast type operations) that cater to Freelance hunters also. That work together to provide hunting lands - This concept could be a hundred times as big as it is. If plenty of land was made available - thru tax incentatives, or the State doing creative things to make it work. Thru increased fees for all (but especially NR's) or taxes & fees on wealthier pay to hunt types like you like.

"Why are their fewer hunting opportunities"
other than Fee hunting it is because of poor management of Non Resident hunters - Too many in to few towns with services - all coming for the same few weeks.

How are you guys going to feel when these fee companies start buying up all the lands, or other Non Residents buy the better hunting places ??? For hunting a few weeks a year ??? & then rent it out to a local farmer, to help defray their costs to hunt ??? Or leasing from the renters of the land for farming, that don't want to be bothered, or worry, or care about hunting ??? Your pretty confident these people have yours & your towns best interest in mind ???

& your final comment to give us whats left over after the Pay to hunt people are thru :roll: Is not my idea of a reasonable answer :eyeroll:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Fetch, I am sorry about your experience when you lost your room. That shouldn't happen and is unethical and should be illegal. Why in the world did you only lose the 2nd night (just curious)? If I were you I would report that to some kind of law enforcement to see if that is even legal, especially since you guaranteed it to a card. Did you get charged for that night, or was that amount refunded/not charged? You have a very valid complaint and I will not argue with it.

I don't agree that Freelance hunting will not exist long. According to all the posts I have read about the joy of hunting and people still finding places to hunt I don't see it going extinct.

I am not defensive and certainly not worried. I am merely questioning your opinions and giving my side of information.

I never said I/we could do it all alone. I am not opposed to you hunting and never told you to stop. All I am saying is that you have taken on the elimination of fee-hunting as a crusade and some of your information isn't accurate and seems more based on panic than reality.

I also didn't say that fee hunting will save our way of life. All I said was that, economically, it doesn't seem to be hurting the businesses down here as much as you seem to believe and it is providing sources of income that weren't there before (local people--hunters themselves believe it or not--can guide, B&B's have opened to accomodate people, etc.).

I did not intend to imply that resident fee hunters don't support the local economy. What I am saying is that not all of them support it equally, so to say that because you spend $x, then if there are x hunters, they will have spent that much money.

A lot of money is taken in during hunting season. My question is, do you expect that your gun should be free because of your right to hunt and to bear arms? What other things do you expect to be free?

"Pay taxes in the State - that does alot more to help keep your towns stay alive than Fee hunting."
Do not all people in the the state not pay state taxes? If that is the case I am going to question the payroll people at mine and my wife's work place. Payment of taxes does not give you any right to claim authority over others in the state. As for NR, the money they spend in town does infinitely more than state tax revenues (federal ones are exempt since NR pay them too).

"Alot of us indirectly work & provide services for all residents of ND - Healthcare - Entertainment - the companies related to agriculture - the stores that most of you travel to to shop, instead of supporting your local merchants :roll: , cause you like variety & styles like the rest of the country- Work in Government that provides countless services to all of ND - Roads & highways - Educate your children after high school - provide services to defense & law enforcement of our state & country - work in banking & finance that is rarely local anymore - provide energy (pay for pipelines to provide water) & fertilizer & chemicals that is rarely local anymore - Provide services & jobs for your old friends & your children, that could no longer remain & work for the fee hunting companies & all their spin off economic benefits :roll: I could go on & on ???"
As for roads and highways and other government operations, we all pay taxes too(yes, even fee hunting companies, if not, they should according to the law, I have never argued for tax breaks for them), so shouldn't we have the right to good roads too?

We also pay for all services such as educating children after high school (even if we have universities in the west too). Apparently, by your logic, you think that just because you work in an industry that helps other people (not free of charge, mind you) that you have the right to take advantage of other people's resources free of charge.

Do you think that anyone who goes to "Healthcare - Entertainment - the companies related to agriculture - the stores that most of you travel to to shop, instead of supporting your local merchants :roll:" demands that these services be provided free of charge? All of these things help, but none of them are free arbitrarily. If someone is on medicare, then some healthcare is free but that has nothing to do with our discussion since this service is not connected to favorite vision of hunting heritage.

As for banking and finance (which you say is rarely local anymore) what if I were to say that this should then be illegal and those that work there should lose their job? These industries are out to make money, are they therefore unethical and the enemy of everyone? Of course not, and that is not what you mean, but put in the context of this discussion, that is what it implies. It implies that their motive is completely altruistic which it obviously is not. So working for them, while a legitimate occupation, is not necessarily a service which would entitle you to the right to claim the right to dictate to those in another industry what they can and cannot do. FYI, there are very few statewide banks and financial institutions that are not also national, so probably more NR work in them than Residents.

I could definitely see a tax break to B&B operators (and other services) that can prove that they have hosted freelance hunters (like cutting partially or completely the taxes paid on that income) as an incentive. I have also never argued against raising fees for NR hunters. I have also argued in favor of a "fee-hunting tax" which would charge them a percentage of their income from operations (gross, not net) and pigeon-hole that money for either general state funds or even for the improvement of private hunting. You and I actually do agree on these issues fully!

To allay your fears about fee hunting companies buying land, why would this suddenly start now? Most land that is bought for hunting purposes out here is actually bought by wealthy RESIDENT FREE LANCE HUNTERS (there aren't many, but there are some). I would be in favor of putting higher property taxes on land that is owned by people not listing ND as their primary residence to help the state's budget and to discourage large out of state companies and private individuals from purchasing large tracts of land at prices that local residents can't match.

For what it is worth, farmers don't generally want/try to purchase land. They prefer to rent. It is hard to come up with the money to purchase land and also, in rental agreements, the deal can be broken every year, but if the relationship stays good (like it usually does), it can make money for the landowner while not having to give up ownership (depending on the length of the agreement, maybe more money than sale) and be more feasible for the renter as well since they aren't bogged down with as much debt. Right now, good hunting land that is also farmed goes for about $1000/acre. A quarter is 160 acres and generally, these are the units that are bought and sold. That means that a farmer has to take on $160,000 of debt to buy it, whereas, he can take on $5600-$6400 in debt by renting it for $35-40/acre (about what rent is right now out here). It doesn't take an economist to figure out that this is a very easy decision.

Let's say that a fee hunting company decided that it needed 20,000 acres to support its operation. Now, they have to make $20,000,000 just to pay off their land. If they are charging $500 (about the upper limit of what people will pay for pheasant hunting out here) that means it will take 40,000 hunter- days (1 hunter for 1 day) to pay off the land, and that doesn't include any other expenses. Let's say they host 1,000 hunter-days per year, it will take 40 years and no other expenses to pay this off. If they buy less land, they can host fewer hunters, or risk the hunters getting angry about the lack of "hunting opporunities" with that company and not come back.

Leasing land makes a lot more sense to hunting companies (but not as much sense as "pay-by-the-bird" compensation plans). For this reason, I am not concerned about fee-hunting companies buying up lots of land (or much land at all). As far as NR buying up land, I think that Resident free lance hunters buy more. They get together in groups of 7-8, and then it is $20,000 per person, the price of a medium to upper level car. They deem this a reasonable price for guaranteed hunting access on good land (bad land doesn't cost nearly as much for obvious reasons) and it goes on indefinitely. As long as there are pheasant/waterfowl anywhere, they will have pheasant/waterfowl to hunt, especially if they manage it carefully. They can also rent the land out to the farmer and get some income back on their investment and the landowner gets to use the land relatively cheaply. Your right, this is a bad idea for everyone :beer:

There is still free lance hunting out here, believe it or not. It even happens on land that is marked no-hunting. In fact, I heard a story from a landowner last year that said they had two hunters from Oklahoma come to their door asking to hunt. They said they were a part of a fee-hunting operation, but it was late in the season and there were not many hunters around. They explained to the hunters that they only let "friends" onto the land at this point in the season. The hunters kicked the ground humbly and said, "What does it take to be your friend?" The landowner said, "I have some chores that I could use a hand with." After the chores were done (about an hours worth of work) they went out and had a great hunt...on private land...posted No Hunting...from a landowner in a fee hunting company. They didn't presume that they shouldn't have to work and told the landowner that they would be happy to help next year for the same access. As I have said many times on this MB, it isn't always money that gains access to land.
 
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
Top