Letter to ND legislators - Scheels All Sports

Scheels knows that most people are not going to stop buying from them over this letter. There's a convenience factor in buying items right in your own backyard. It shouldn't stop people however, from letting them know they think they should look at the whole picture. I wonder how many of the NRs they are refering to are from MN or specifically Moorhead. After looking through expenditures to Scheels over the last 2 years, Sports shoes and Boots, Waders, Shells and Bullets, Hunting clothes, a blind and camo burlap, Rifle, shotguns, Decoys, Hunting Videos, Fishing, Ice Fising, Electronic caller, Sweatshirts, Socks, Binoculars, Ski's, Wakeboard, Kneeboard, Ropes, Water Tubes, Tennis Racket and balls, Golf Balls, and various gifts purchased for family, friends and farmers, Id like them to know I've contributed to their bottom line in the last two years...to the tune of about $7000.00 (1 person). As a contradiction to one of my previous posts, maybe a trip or two to Cabelas or Walmart might be in order.

Chis that would be a letter to send to our elected officals along with the emails of support.

I listen to Eddy everyday[ office choice ]and a very thoughtful concerned listener ask him to do a open forum concerning all the hunting related bills that affect 1 out of 5 people. We need to gather some free air time if possible. I would hope you and Dan or Dick and a number of other MAJORITY posters would be able to participate.

Thank you for a truley uncensored site to share and discuss our views. I thinChis this would be a letter to send to our elected officals along with the emails of support. I listen to Eddy everyday[ office choice ]and a very thoughtful concerned listener ask him to do a open forum concerning all the hunting related bills that affect 1 out of 5 people. We need to gather some free air time if possible. I would hope you and Dan or Dick and a number of other MAJORITY posters would be able to participate.
k that the cost of membership is low in comparison to other expendatures we make in our outdoor pusuits. Those that are guests think about supporting the continuation of free uncensored speech.

Ron

It is too bad that some of you don't at least respect Mr. Scheels opinion. He is actually more on your side than alot of people are. His organization actually wants no limits but will compromise on the 30,000. I don't agree with that but I sure am not going to take my ball and go home because he doesn't agree with me!!!!!!!!
He makes a good point about our lessening population base and the need to replace those hunters. Those of you who are going to go out of state or to catalogs for your purchaes because of this letter, don't understand the real world. Those who have threatened to go out of state ( not those who have said they will shop elsewhere in the state ) should really think about what you are saying. If you actually take your dollars out of state you are going to help lower the available sales tax dollars to the state of ND. This will be very counterproductive and hurt your state.
I know for a fact that Scheels does donate thousands and thousands of real dollars to all the sportsmen and women of ND. They are a huge contibutor to the resource of our state and should not be criticized for this at all. Please check your facts on this donation point before commenting any further. Oh, and remeber, they also donate to mostly YOUTH activities and this is one of the arguments I hear most about this issue is the YOUTH. So be careful to call names ect. Hear his and others opinions and state yours. This is America and we can all agree or disagree but by no means should we trash each other over an opinion.
Why has no one come up with a cure for the $80,000,000 in lost sales we will lose if there is a cap on NR's? That equates to $4,000,000 in lost sales tax revenue to the state!!!! Where will the replacement dollars come from? Sounds like with a cap we will have to pay higher taxes and thus less spendable dollars for our recreations. Might want to re-think the cap issue?????????????? Or is it an access issue as stated earlier from Vermont.

Econ, I'll actually take a little different approach than Frosty to try and answer your question.

First, where did you get your figure of loosing $80,000,000? If memory serves, the economic impact from expenditures by all nonresident waterfowlers isn't even close to that number? But more important, HPC wouldn't put a road-block up at the border - something like 75-80% of the nonresidents would have hunted this year under HPC. The people pushing hard against caps often paint this issue as black and white, as if reasonable caps will somehow keep ALL nonresidents and ALL of their economic impact out.

And something that hasn't been mentioned much - some in waterfowl commerce (especially up in your area, Econ) complained last year that our licensing system caused a lower functional cap than the actual cap, on the theory that a large percentage of nonresident pheasant hunters bought waterfowl stamps "just in case" they ran into a duck in Hettinger county. I personally don't think that was much of an issue, but it sure was portrayed as one by some last fall. By virtue of splitting the licenses under 1358, commerce can be better assured they will have only true waterfowl hunters buying waterfowl tags. So if the others were right, and I was wrong, commerce will get an automatic bump because the cap number will be filled only by true waterfowlers, not by some who are really only pheasant hunting and just buy a throw-in waterfowl tag for $10. If they're right, we'd have a significant percentage more nonresident waterfowlers with the same number of waterfowl licenses.

Even with this adjustment, yes, HPC will in some years mean less licenses sold than could have been (afterall, that's the point), and a corresponding loss in several millions of dollars of seasonal economic impact. But, at the risk of triggering your standard "pick up your toys and go home" comment, lots of us would not be in ND right now if not because of the quality hunting that existed up to a few short years ago. If ND can no longer keep and draw thousands (even a few thousand) people (remember, not just hunters, but their families too) that have traded more money, better weather, more cultural activities or whatever else to be close to quality hunting, how will that impact the ND economy?

Don't think we'll ever convince you of the fact that many of us wrestled and continue to wrestle with tough decisions on where to live, and that the ND outdoors tipped and will tip the balance. And, if you don't accept that, you'll never fully understand the full value of the hunting asset to ND, and the need to balance fall dollars with year-round dollars. Just as it makes no sense to keep all nonresidents out, it makes no sense to think you can let them all in without consequences to year-round expenditures.

The heritage arguments alone are strong, but even from an economic analysis, there needs to be some balance to get the most out of one of ND's most valuable assets. Not whiney, greedy, juvenile or immature, just fact.

By the way, I don't hold Steve's letter against him. He's got his views on the issue, and mine are a little different. I agree, not the least bit good for ND if ND's send money out of state (also no good for ND to maximize fall dollars at the expense of year-round dollars). Steve's letter won't cause me to send money out of state that I would otherwise spend at his store.