[David S Proffitt]

Well I will take a risk here. I am a "Nonresident Hunter". Good thing I started hunting North Dakota before I started reading this forum. I love this page. It is a place of great information and celebration. I love North Dakota. My wife was born there and her family still farms and ranches here. I started hunting in North Dakota three years ago while I lived in Montana. I have now moved to Reno Nevada for work but we plan on retiring in North Dakota asap!

However, reading this board makes me feel guilty for appreciating the country so much that I spend the time and money to hunt the birds for three weeks each October. I do not hunt on leases. I hunt public and non-posted private land. I will say this though, I appreciate and so value the experience of hunting in this great country that I would pay more. I grew up in Nebraska in the 70's when you could hunt all day hard to kick up a couple of rosters.

The reason that the hunting is better now is that there is a financial incentive to maintain good habitat. Habitat ensures good bird populations. Good bird populations generally are not related to hunter harvest numbers. The only way to maintain good habitat is to ensure that those who own the land have a financial interest in keeping the habitat the supports birds.

Less out of state hunters does not accomplish this goal. Increased revenues to farmers who maintain habitat and allow public access does.

Guys like me visit ND, spend money, consume little if any public services, and then go home. That is good for the economy of everyone in ND.

So what is the solution to ensuring great public hunting in the future? I would suggest a strong ND Outdoorsman Association with a political agenda be organized to do the following;
1. Increase nonresident and resident licenses to increase financial resources of the Wildlife department.
2. Establish guidelines that prohibit any person accepting public funds for land improvements/reserves from denying reasonable public access.
3. Enforce NO GUIDES / OUTFITTERS OR HUNTING LODGE GUESTS HUNTING ON PUBLIC OR PRIVATE NONPOSTED LANDS!
4. Increase the number of recreation days of all sportsmen having ND hunting licenses, (not just residents. This will increase fiscal resources).

 

[Bronco]

Well Said I couldn't agree more with you. The only thing I would add is that for the Outdoorsman Association to be successful it would have to include farmers and take a look at what can be done to help their situation. The key to ensuring quality hunting access & strong rural communities is to find ways (or voices) to help change farm policies so theses family farmers can make it. The more family farmers that own land and are part of an organization that helps support their cause the better for us! Keep the land grabbing CEO's out of our state!

But all in all-Great Post! :lol:

 

[Matt Jones]

I agree with you that quality habitat leads to good hunting, but I fail to see where more non-resident hunters, and for that matter more resident hunters would lead to more quality habitat. The G&F does a good job improving habitat on plots land and elsewhere but the amount of land they work with isn't very much, only a few hundred thousand acres. Most habitat improvements are done because of the farm bill and farm programs. These programs were designed to set aside land that isn't very productive for agriculture. Benefits of cleaner water, less soil erosion, and better farm prices were what they were intended for...benefits for wildlife are a secondary bonus. Believe it or not, but when they started CRP it wasn't to increase bird populations.

So I do not see the connection to more hunters equaling better habitat. Actually I think it is the other way around...better habitat has lead to more hunters.

 

[David S Proffitt]

Increasing the number of hunters increases revenues to G & F. These revenues can be used for habitat enhancement programs. I am aware what the CRP program was designed to do. Wouldn't it be a good if the G & F department had the financial resources to pay an additional buck or two for CRP acarages that garentee public access for the life of the contract? Or wouldn't it be in everones best interest if G & F had the resources to increase the Tree oplanting program to ensure more 1/4 section access?

Would you purchase a $20 Upland Game Stamp that allowed you to hunt on private land enrolled in a public access program? I would. What if that stamp was only good for a specific month. Yes I know the costs are going up but if it ensured that the access I value so much would be there and I wasn't asking a farmer to sacrafice for my recreation I would be ever so happy to pay it.

In addition, the more people who hunt this country the more people you will have that care about public access, habitat improvement, and wildlife populations. I currently give donations to two private, nonprofit wildlife organizations who support wildlife habitat and outdoor recreation. I believe that hunters are the primary financial supports of most of these type organizations. I would be glad / proad to contribute more than my license money to an organization in ND that has the ideals of improving access and improving habitat.

 

[MRN]

David,

Thanks for starting a civil discussion and not calling us a bunch of morons, and worse. I, for one, apprecaite your positive attitude. Some may disagree with you, but everyone values hearing new ideas and new priorities.

Why don't you move back here BEFORE you retire? We need that most of all.
Have a good season, and work some "job/house hunting" into the mix...

M.

 

[Westerner]

Yes, it is me again. I know there are many not happy to see me, but I have something good to say.

Great post David. I agree with all of your posted logic.

The pheasant population is not a function of hunting amounts, but of habitat. Farmers are starting to actually take pheasant/duck effects into account when making their plans. I have even heard of some that will leave grain standing in the field to help the birds through the winter months.

Also, I strongly agree that there should be strict penalties and enforcement of them to fee hunting companies that charge fees and then hunt on public or unposted land. This is ethically evil and there is no justification for it. If I were paying for the hunt and found out I was on public land I would consider pursuing legal action of some sort.

 

[KEN W]

Just one question...If guides and outfitters were not allowed to hunt on unposted land,wouldn't that force them to lease more than they do now???

 

[Eric Hustad]

Great discussion guys!!! Nobody wants to see limits on the average guy who comes from around the country to hunt. I think it's great when kids from outside the state come to hunt because they find a love of the sport and our great state. It does scare me with the leasing because you really do limit a great resource to a few people. I still like some sort of land access stamp everyone pays for and then give the money to landowners who allow access for birds(deer hunting not included). Anyway glad you enjoy the site David.

 

[Dean Nelson]

"I spend the time and money to hunt the birds for three weeks each October."

Not trying to be a smart *** here but you only have 14 days to hunt as an OOS not 21.

 

[David S Proffitt]

it includes the Pheasant season too.

 

[Drakekiller]

We need to freese the number of outfitters to a 100 or 150 and limit the number of acres that they can lease.They would also have to stay on their leases 100 outfitters 15,000 acres=1,500,000.They would have to post their leases that they are outfitter leases and file name of land owner with land description.Outfitters useing their own land only would not be included. If the outfitter is caught off his lease it would cost him his Outfitters license.We have outfitters now pushing 100,000 acres and still hunt off their leases.Thats 156.25 sq. miles. The G&F have 236,000 acres.We have to stop this this session.By the way the land they lease is the best land.

 

[Westerner]

Drakekiller,
I agree whole-heartedly that outfitters not hunting on "their" land should have their license revoked. I would even say there should be a penalty (say $500/gun or something like that). I am also in agreement with your statement that all land leased by outfitters/guides should be registered (clerk of court?) and the name of the landowner listed along with a description of the land in question.

While I see your logic, putting a limit on the number of outfitters would be complicated. Who would get to be in it? Would it be first come first serve? Would each county get a quota? It would need a lot of administration and would probably not solve much and cause a lot of head-aches.

The 15,000 acre limit idea has merit. It would be meaningless without a limit on operations since if there is no limit, the outfitter could simply put 15,000 acres under each of about a dozen "names." As far as the "land they lease is the best land," in that you are very correct. Generally, the "talent goes where the money is."

The fact is that any attempt to limit the number of outfitters is going to get challenged in court as unfairly limiting business. You couldn't get a law passed only allowing x number of gas stations, air-ports, golf courses or any of a dozen other businesses.

 

[Nick Roehl]

I hunt in ND from sept 1 until jan 10( and beyond for furbearer) and spend money here the whole year. And like Matt said, I don't see how letting more NRs in to hunt will help improve habitat. The more you let in the more public land you need and that would get overcrowded and then would need more land and by that time there would be more overcrowding. Just one big cycle. I support limiting NR, both upland and waterfowl.