Joined
·
10,261 Posts
There still is a lot to add and delete as there will always be give and take, but here's what I feel fit.
-----------------------------------------
Why base economic development on a limited resource? We're wasting money and time that could be spent on bringing more jobs into the state and rural economies. By degrading the living standards of residents, you're limiting a huge part of being a North Dakota resident.
Obviously after a lot of discussion, land access is the biggest issue and most agree. So how do we approach land access? First of all, I like the idea of the Land Access Stamp. The first time I heard it mentioned was at the Judiciary B meeting in Fargo last September by Curt Wells. I don't think anyone who hunts in North Dakota will argue over an extra $25 for more opportunities for all. If that money results in more habitat, that will provide much needed cover for all species that thrive there as well. Sportsman like to see there dollars go directly to work and this would be a great way to do it. This is extra income for landowners as well, as landowners are one of the biggest keys to the whole process. It would be great for some of that money go towards public crop fields, so field waterfowl hunters can have more opportunities as well.
2nd, I would NOT raise license fees besides the Land Access Stamp. We're trying to create land access, not get rich off of those trying to carry on a tradition. It's the average joe who want to bring his or her family and friends here that should be welcome. They could take their vacation anywhere in the world, but they chose to come here. So if it's money North Dakota wants than let them come. But there can be too much of a good thing. Would North Dakota economies love an extra 50,000 hunters; you bet. But can the resources support it? I feel that money will only be short term, as there will be too many trying to profit from this trend, and the result will be a huge decline in land access. When land access drops, so does the amount of interested hunters. I don't want to look 10 years down the road and see that nobody comes here anymore because there's no where for him or her to hunt. That's why there should be a limit on non-resident hunters. I think a limit of around 25,000 non-resident waterfowl licenses, on a lottery base, will help keep the hunter population at a manageable level. The same should go for upland licenses. Than rural businesses can benefit in the long term, with a constant flow of hunters, not the short term. I think they should group the licenses with the lottery. I would hate to see a family of 5 plan a trip, and only 3 can make it. So it would be a group application.
I also believe there should be zones to spread out the hunters. It only makes sense to spread out the hunters so we're not stepping on each other's toes. I believe the 6 zones applied from the NDSA are valid.
I believe there should be a high fee on outfitter licenses. This will result in fewer outfitters. But at the same time, the larger outfitters become more powerful. As an outfitter's income increases, so do the amount of leased land AND the amount of amenities that the outfitter will provide. Many outfitters believe their customers bring a lot of money into the state. They do, but how much does the community benefit when the outfitter supplies food, lodging, drinks, licensing, shells, etc. etc. Other than gas at the local gas station, the outfitter keeps all of the money in the business.
There should also be a limit on the number of acres leased by an outfitter. There's no reason why an outfitter needs 50,000 acres. That's just greed. I know an outfitter that is very profitable without leasing one acre of land. The limitation should be strictly regulated as well. There could be too many loop holes (i.e. brother also leases 10K, mother leases 10K, under the table agreements, etc.) with just a flat limit.
There MUST be a balance on all issues involved. Managing the amount of hunters, land access, landowner concerns, and the resources will ensure there is money for the rural economies, opportunities for resident and non-resident hunters, and more habitat for wildlife. The outfitters will always be able to cater towards the rich, but we must make hunting accessible to the average citizen. Didn't we vote on making hunting and fishing apart of our heritage in this state the other year? We need to preserve that heritage.
-------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
Why base economic development on a limited resource? We're wasting money and time that could be spent on bringing more jobs into the state and rural economies. By degrading the living standards of residents, you're limiting a huge part of being a North Dakota resident.
Obviously after a lot of discussion, land access is the biggest issue and most agree. So how do we approach land access? First of all, I like the idea of the Land Access Stamp. The first time I heard it mentioned was at the Judiciary B meeting in Fargo last September by Curt Wells. I don't think anyone who hunts in North Dakota will argue over an extra $25 for more opportunities for all. If that money results in more habitat, that will provide much needed cover for all species that thrive there as well. Sportsman like to see there dollars go directly to work and this would be a great way to do it. This is extra income for landowners as well, as landowners are one of the biggest keys to the whole process. It would be great for some of that money go towards public crop fields, so field waterfowl hunters can have more opportunities as well.
2nd, I would NOT raise license fees besides the Land Access Stamp. We're trying to create land access, not get rich off of those trying to carry on a tradition. It's the average joe who want to bring his or her family and friends here that should be welcome. They could take their vacation anywhere in the world, but they chose to come here. So if it's money North Dakota wants than let them come. But there can be too much of a good thing. Would North Dakota economies love an extra 50,000 hunters; you bet. But can the resources support it? I feel that money will only be short term, as there will be too many trying to profit from this trend, and the result will be a huge decline in land access. When land access drops, so does the amount of interested hunters. I don't want to look 10 years down the road and see that nobody comes here anymore because there's no where for him or her to hunt. That's why there should be a limit on non-resident hunters. I think a limit of around 25,000 non-resident waterfowl licenses, on a lottery base, will help keep the hunter population at a manageable level. The same should go for upland licenses. Than rural businesses can benefit in the long term, with a constant flow of hunters, not the short term. I think they should group the licenses with the lottery. I would hate to see a family of 5 plan a trip, and only 3 can make it. So it would be a group application.
I also believe there should be zones to spread out the hunters. It only makes sense to spread out the hunters so we're not stepping on each other's toes. I believe the 6 zones applied from the NDSA are valid.
I believe there should be a high fee on outfitter licenses. This will result in fewer outfitters. But at the same time, the larger outfitters become more powerful. As an outfitter's income increases, so do the amount of leased land AND the amount of amenities that the outfitter will provide. Many outfitters believe their customers bring a lot of money into the state. They do, but how much does the community benefit when the outfitter supplies food, lodging, drinks, licensing, shells, etc. etc. Other than gas at the local gas station, the outfitter keeps all of the money in the business.
There should also be a limit on the number of acres leased by an outfitter. There's no reason why an outfitter needs 50,000 acres. That's just greed. I know an outfitter that is very profitable without leasing one acre of land. The limitation should be strictly regulated as well. There could be too many loop holes (i.e. brother also leases 10K, mother leases 10K, under the table agreements, etc.) with just a flat limit.
There MUST be a balance on all issues involved. Managing the amount of hunters, land access, landowner concerns, and the resources will ensure there is money for the rural economies, opportunities for resident and non-resident hunters, and more habitat for wildlife. The outfitters will always be able to cater towards the rich, but we must make hunting accessible to the average citizen. Didn't we vote on making hunting and fishing apart of our heritage in this state the other year? We need to preserve that heritage.
-------------------------------------------
