North Dakota Fishing and Hunting Forum banner
1 - 20 of 53 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
347 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Thought this might be of interest...

Minnesota hunters are staring down the barrel of ever-tightening hunting restrictions and escalating license fees when they travel to other states to hunt.
North Dakota is the latest to impose stricter hunting regulations and higher fees for nonresidents -- including the 15,000 Minnesota hunters who journey there each fall to hunt waterfowl and perhaps 10,000 who hunt pheasants.
That has some Minnesota hunters crying foul and suggesting that Minnesota should retaliate by raising its fishing license fees for North Dakotans or limiting how many days they can fish here.
North Dakota's actions, which mirror similar ones imposed in recent years in South Dakota, Iowa and other states, have Minnesota hunters steaming.
"The whole thing stinks," said John Molkenbur of St. Paul, an avid waterfowl hunter who still plans to hunt ducks in North Dakota this fall.

Minnesota officials have heard the howls.

"This North Dakota situation really ticks me off," Gov. Tim Pawlenty told about 90 members of Minnesota outdoors groups and politicians gathered Saturday in Nicollet, Minn., to discuss outdoors issues.
Pawlenty said he intends to meet with North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven to discuss the situation. "I'm going to go up and tell him this cannot go forward on this basis, with this amount of tension and frustration and, frankly, this amount of unfairness," Pawlenty said.
"We will seek out ways to get his voluntary cooperation to bring some fairness. If that's not successful, we may have to use other means."
The group applauded Pawlenty's comments.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Gene Merriam said last week that state officials are concerned. "However, we don't think it makes sense to escalate the arms race by being retaliatory.
"But they [North Dakotans] can't come over here and enjoy fishing our lakes in the summer and expect our citizens to put up with some pretty onerous provisions during the hunting season there."
Said Rep. Tom Hackbarth, R-Cedar, who heads the House Environment and Natural Resources Policy Committee: "I can promise you that something will happen."

The issue has been controversial in North Dakota, too.

Some residents have pushed hard for the North Dakota Legislature and governor to restrict nonresident hunters. Others said that pulling in the welcome mat will only hurt the state's economy and many small-town businesses that depend on visiting hunters and anglers.
The heart of the issue: Those who support nonresident restrictions say too many nonresident hunters are flooding the state each fall, taking away hunting opportunities from North Dakota residents. They also say nonresidents are leasing or buying hunting land, making it harder for residents to find a place to hunt.
"Some of our residents are concerned about losing their places to hunt," said Paul Schadewald of the North Dakota Game and Fish Department. "And they complain of heavy hunter traffic in some areas."
There has been a dramatic increase in nonresident hunters flocking to North Dakota.
The number of nonresident waterfowl hunters jumped from about 8,000 in 1990 to 30,000 last year, when the state put a cap on the number of available nonresident licenses. (There are about 35,000 resident waterfowl hunters in North Dakota.) There is no cap this year, but other restrictions are intended to check nonresident hunter numbers.
Half of the nonresident waterfowl hunters are Minnesotans.
North Dakota's nonresident pheasant hunter numbers also have climbed from about 8,000 less than 10 years ago to about 22,000. (There are about 50,000 resident pheasant hunters.) Officials don't have a breakdown of where those nonresident hunters are from, but it is assumed that half are from Minnesota.
"Some residents wanted more restrictions than have been imposed," said Schadewald. "Other tourist and economic development people didn't want this. It's been a struggle. And I'm afraid it's going to continue."

Irate callers
The phones have been ringing at the North Dakota Game and Fish Department from upset nonresident hunters.
"This week I've been talking to six to eight nonresidents a day," Schadewald said. "Yes, there are some hard feelings. There are some people who are irate and say they're just not going to come to North Dakota to hunt.
"But that's just what some North Dakota people want."
Schadewald said that when he explains some of the new regulations, some nonresidents aren't as upset.
Here are the major changes facing nonresident hunters in North Dakota this fall:

For the second consecutive season, only residents are allowed to hunt the first week of the waterfowl season, beginning Sept. 27. The intent is to give residents first crack and ducks and geese. Nonresidents can hunt beginning Oct. 4.

Nonresident waterfowl hunters are restricted to 14 days, or two seven-day periods, as they have been for years. They can buy only one license per season. Last year, the state capped the number of nonresident licenses available at 30,000. "We had several thousand hunters who didn't get licenses last year," Schadewald said. There is no cap this year. But there are new zones for nonresidents, and those hunters may hunt only seven days in certain ones.
"One of the concerns is from nonresident landowners who have land in those areas," Schadewald said. "Instead of being able to hunt for two weeks, they can only hunt for one week on their own land."
That could discourage nonresidents from buying or leasing land for hunting, Schadewald acknowledges. "In fact, that's probably part of the intent of the sponsors [of the regulations]," Schadewald said.

Nonresident upland and waterfowl hunters won't be able to hunt from Oct. 11 to Oct. 17 on state-owned and state-leased lands, including those in the PLOTS (Private Lands Open To Sportsmen) program. That's the first week of the pheasant season. Nonresidents still will be able to hunt during that week on private or federal lands.

The restriction mostly will affect pheasant hunters, not waterfowl hunters. Most lakes and sloughs are bordered by private property, Schadewald said. State lands affected are posted with signs indicating they are state-owned or state-leased, Schadewald said.
Some nonresident hunters are upset because the restriction falls during a time when most Minnesota youths are out of school for teachers' conferences and often accompany adults on hunting trips.
The law was intended to affect only pheasant hunting, but the state attorney general ruled that because of its wording, it prohibited all nonresident hunting on those lands for that week.
That leaves a confusing situation: Those lands are open to nonresident waterfowl hunters from Oct. 4 until Oct. 10, then are closed for a week, then reopen to nonresidents on Oct. 18. "It doesn't make any sense to us either," Schadewald said.

The cost of nonresident waterfowl licenses has increased to $100. A small-game license to hunt pheasants also now costs $100. The cost to hunt both pheasants and ducks has nearly doubled to $185. Those costs now are similar to South Dakota's.

Small-game licenses for pheasant hunters, which used to be valid for the entire season, now are good for only 10 consecutive days or two five-day periods, the same as South Dakota's. Hunters can buy multiple licenses.
Fee increases for nonresidents are becoming commonplace. Iowa boosted nonresident fees for a wild turkey license from $81 to $188 last year. And South Dakota now has a special early pheasant season just for residents.
Given the fee increases occurring across the border, some angry Minnesota hunters say the state's nonresident fishing licenses should be increased, at least for North Dakota residents.
The state sells about 42,000 nonresident fishing licenses to North Dakotans. A license, valid for the year, costs $35, or $47 for a husband-wife license.
Those on both sides of the North Dakota-Minnesota line agree border battles won't help retain and recruit hunters and anglers.
"We're seeing barriers erected to hunting opportunities," Merriam said. "It's not in anyone's best interest."
But the problem isn't likely to go away.
Said Schadewald: "What is happening is the places that have good hunting are getting a lot of pressure from all over the country. Where is there good waterfowl hunting in the lower 48 states? There isn't a lot of places. And good pheasant hunting is somewhat limited, too."

North Dakota has both.

Doug Smith is at [email protected].
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,949 Posts
Maybe someone needs to remind Hoven that Pawlenty does not vote in this state nor do I in MN. Then he needs to point out the cost and troulbe MN has raised concerning water use out of the Red River. Kind of suprising that so many MN want what we have but do not want to live here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
426 Posts
My two cents..................let North Dakota do whatever the hell they want and you Mn hunters just stop cying about it. I live here in Mn but don't consider myself a Minnesotan AT ALL!!!! I'm so sick of listeneing to the *****in' and whinin' that many(NOT ALL) Mns do! Get over it!!!!!! To limit NR fishermen WHOAAAA!!!! BIG DEAL!!!!!!!!!!!! If Minnesotans were banned from hunting everywhere else but home it wouldn't hurt my fealings a bit!!!!!!!!!! I think every state should have the right to look out for their own residents first!!!!! And if it meens putting restrictions on NRs then so be it! Any disagreements with me then keep them to yourselves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
160 Posts
Obviously not the subject here, but since Ron brought it up, I'm just curious as to the trouble MN has caused from using water from the Red River?
I know as far as Moorhead goes, it comes from there, and from wells as well, and fargo comes from the red river and sometimes sheyene.
just wondering.
thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,645 Posts
Does anyone seriously believe that if Minnesota had our game numbers they would not move to protect their citizens hunting? I didn't think so.

We are not a colony of Minnesota to be dictated to at their whim because it costs them a little more to hunt here. Like Ron said, they don't vote here, they don't live here.
Minnesota has always hammered us on the Red River, remember the dikeing lawsuit on the northern Red------their dikes should be higher than ours----guess who gets the flood water? When eastern ND wanted clean water from Garrison, remember who opposed it?

Of course, maybe Minnesota has a governor who listens to the sportsmen there. Refreshing!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Go Pawlenty!!! I am glad that they are finally doing something about this!!!Why is it that everyone has their feathers ruffled??? Is it because tens of thousand MN lake home owners are from ND's RRV? and if they don't own a home it is their day trip home away from home? I can see why they would be upset because now they would have to drive all the way across the state to get into any fishing at all.

I don't understand why the MN's are upset about being pushed out of ND. I hunted in MN for almost 15 years before moving to ND and there was not a day that I couldn't have just as good of a hunt there as I have here. The western side and southern part of MN have just as good H2O hunting if you know where to look. With the population explosion of the Giant Canadians the only difference would be that there is really no migrating lessers. (but comon what would you rather shoot, a limit of giants or lessers?)

I also pounded many limits of roosters out of the SW part of the state, actually it was probably better hunting than here in ND because you didn't have any leased land or pay for hunting operations.

Yes, I hunt ND, not because it is better than MN, I would hunt any state that I resided because I love hunting. I hope that they (the Gov's) can iron this out. My Family is from MN, they have a lake home there, and I love to fish there. My father who is 68 and a NR to ND comes here to hunt, not because the hunting is any better but that is where his two hunting partners for 33 yrs and 5 yrs now reside and he wouldn't miss that for any amount of money, neither would I. So if it comes down to it I guess I'll give you guys more room to hunt, cuz I'd rather give my $ to MN they stand for much more than the whiney ND res. do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,062 Posts
Doesn't MN have enough trouble without concerning itself with ND and other neighborng states? I can see it now. Iowa residents won't be allowed to hunt deer and pheasants in MN. ND residents won't be allowed to fish in MN the first week of the walleye season. (the ND walleye season never closes) SD residents will be banned from huntng pheasants in MN. I can't wait to see the proclamation...it's already like reading a novel now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
842 Posts
The main issue that is really putting MN hunters up in arms is the closure of PLOT and NDG&F land during the MEA teacher's convention days. The loss of use on that Thursday and Friday is the BIG issue.

The ND legislature did not plan it that way when they came out with this legislation - I would have to believe that it is a matter of coincidence.

Curt Wells wrote a nice article in the Outdoor News last week. He essentially said that the law as written was poorly designed and an enforcement nightmare. Does it make sense to have PLOT and NDG&F land closed to waterfowl hunting in areas where few pheasants live?

I agree with Wells.

PH's comments :
If ND wanted to give residents first crack at pheasants. Open the season for residents only for seven days. Then open for all. Too bad the powers of the G/Os were too strong.

"This NRs on private land only" for the first seven days only serves those that guide, lease, or sell land to NRs.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,488 Posts
I don't understand the logic of this statement PH...If ND wanted to give residents first crack at pheasants. Open the season for residents only for seven days.

If this were the case then Minn. hunters still could not hunt during teachers conv. anywhere for pheasants.Now they can hunt here,but not on state land.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
As a Minnesota resident I can understand both sides, North Dakota should protect its resources but North Dakota resource is also an American resource. And now Minnesota wants to retaliate by limited hunting and fishing. I don't know how this will set, some say the resorts won't stand for it. Let me tell you the resort industry in Minnesota is dead. Judd's resort on Winnie is closing, most small resort are in huge trouble. They don't have the pull that they did in the 70's. Fetch, you talk about raping the resource, you first should look to Minnesota lakes. Specifically the perch and walleye, I'm glad they finally reduced the perch limit; they are going to come back. I'm sure limiting the amount of nonresidents fishing licenses will anger some folks, hopefully they do raise the license, $100 a year sounds about right. That will also help the MNDNR with budget issues. Most guys just want a quality hunting/fishing experience. Unless you're rich that becoming hard to do in any state. :cry:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
842 Posts
Resident only season: Yes Pheasants would be closed for NRs everywhere that Thursday and Friday, but the PLOT and NDG&F lands still open to hunting for waterfowl, etc...

Enforcement easy: NRs can not possess a pheasant until Saturday.

It is the access (or lack of access) that has these (not me) MN hunters upset.

SD does not open their season until Saturday, October 18th. SD Resident only season is 3 days the weekend + Monday before regular opener. Plus they have a youth pheasant season October 4 and 5.

None of this creates a we - they attitude regarding access to public land.

To my knowledge MN hunters have not really complained about these early SD hunts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
842 Posts
What if the MN DNR stated :

Nonresidents could not use public boat launches the first 4 weekends of the regular fishing season?

Nonresidents with cabins or using resorts would not be impacted, but the freelance NR (mostly ND people) would be excluded on many, many lakes.

Thus the commercial entities would rule, those relying on public land ... out.

In fact resorts would make good money, because they could charge $10 or more per boat for freelance NR fisherman to launch boats.

Access to public land gone ... fair ? That is apparently the issue ...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
372 Posts
how about focusing the energy being used bickering in working to improve what the state has to offer....Didn't MN have some major issues in their DNR...

Seems like Pawlenty put Hoven in a bad spot here, a no win situation....An impression of ND being MN's playground????

I think MN should raise NR fishing $$$, adjust limits and slot limits, use the money to improve the resource and access to it....

Didn't we go through the threats last year with the cap and the res only week???? Must be preseaon stress?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,506 Posts
PH and Bob Dole - separated at birth? Sorry, Dan Bueide couldn't resist that one any longer. :D

Will this benefit the G/O's? They'll probably pick up some extra business, assuming they have capacity(?). Many (most?) NR uplanders without much landowner affiliation will probably wait a week.

Who else will this benefit? Lots of residents who have not hunted the "opener" in prime areas for many years because they don't have landowner contacts that are open that weekend and haven't been willing to play war games on public land. I have a neighbor with a 17 year old son that has no contacts in the prime areas and doesn't enjoy battling crowds on opener on public grounds. 1223 will cause them to hunt the opener in a great area together for the first time ever. I have other friends that have hunted the NW on opener for years, usually only two days. They hunt "opener" because of family hunting "traditions", and hunt almost exclusively on state land. They have complained about opening weekend pressure in recent years and have up until now only hunted the weekend because that's all they were willing to take of the pressure. This year they plan to hunt 4-5 days that week.

Sometimes you crawl b/4 you walk. The resident-only-everywhere first week was discussed prior to the last session. Yes, the G/O's would have fought it. So would landowners used to having sons, daughters, grandchildren, etc. come home from other states for the traditional "opener." So would have other tourism interests.

At the end, it was decided, after consultations with legislators, to limit 1223 to state lands. In this recent melee about harsh treatment of NR's, I have to agree with Ken in what would be perceived as more obtrusive. No pheasant hunting anywhere that week, or no hunting on state land that week? Would MN MEA'ers been happier that they couldn't hunt pheasants anywhere in the state that week? I don't know how MEA is set, but I believe the recent ND traditional opener has always been the second Saturday in October. ND did not plan the effects of 1223 integrated with the traditional opener date to mess with the MEA'ers. As PH said, it's coincidence there's any overlap, but taking away all pheasant hunting for the first week would surely have drawn heavy fire too.

The current interpretation of 1223 is not inconsistent with G&F's thoughts during the session. I know this from several conversations with them during the session. The first 1223 interpretation a few weeks ago, regardless of the message now, was inconsistent with what they thought 1223 meant then. What happened in the interim I suppose is anybody's guess, but I have a few.

NR uplanders still have options if they choose to hunt ND that week. Pheasants on private or federal lands. Grouse can be real iffy by then anyhow, but these state lands aren't typically the best place to hunt them either - usually too heavy cover. Partridge? - give me a break. They were never "hunted" by many if any anyhow, and their present numbers are such that the very few who might have, wouldn't.

Waterfowl? WMA's can provide decent waterfowling, but this provision will kick in after two weeks of res and one week of nonres waterfowling. My personal experience is that, especially with the hunter numbers of recent years, public hunting areas quickly become pretty unreliable. Some PLOTS parcels may have some water, but they are more commonly upland and deer habitat, so their unavailability isn't all that big of a deal for NR waterfowlers either.

I guess it's only natural that the state who last acts gets the greatest attention, but I think another huge factor is how unbelievably open ND and its outstanding offerings have been for so long. SD, which is probably the state most comparable to ND in terms of species offerings, barely gets mentioned in passing when the fur starts to fly. SD, of course, has the trespass law. SD also effectively limits waterfowl licenses as we know them to 13% of last year's ND cap. SD has a shorter pheasant season (3-4 weeks), a res-only week, and has had the 2-5's split upland license (always and still more $ than ND) for many years. Which state is by far and away still more nonres-friendly?

Yes, ND was the last to act, but I think a big part of the fury is for many thousands of folks the faucet dispensing free milk was closed about two turns. For many nores the too-good-to-be-true ND gravy train is leaving the station. Many ND res's know the feeling. SD, which has always been and still is far more restrictive, largely gets a pass because they have a history of being more restrictive. The present format or a full week of res-only pheasants, the NR's "harshing" would be "harshing" either way, and the present format has less of an actual effect on more of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
113 Posts
What is the latest on the MN DNR plan to improve watefowl hunting in the state? Their big initiative and long range plan to improve the states waterfowl hunting was announce a few years ago and haven't really been following it to see what actual work has been done. Can anybody provide an update on it?

"Given the fee increases occurring across the border, some angry Minnesota hunters say the state's nonresident fishing licenses should be increased, at least for North Dakota residents."

How come the MN powers to be are forgetting to include SD in the whole equation? They've had their restrictions (6K non-res waterfowlers and 10 day pheasant license) in place for so long that everybody get's all PO'd at ND. SD has had these regs for years and is a big part of the problem of ND residents feeling their being flooded with the midwest's non-res waterfowlers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,582 Posts
All the more reason to get someone as Govenor that understands all this :-?

Go to a Red Hawks Game & a College Football game & Sioux Hockey - Otherwise all Minn does is Help Montana Keep ND Windy :D :wink:.................Next ??? :roll:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
842 Posts
Fetch, Hey I was in the Grand Cities awhile back. I forgot to call you. :cry:

Also attended a Red Hawk game in August. It was fun. :D

Dan: Sorry but that one was way over my head - someone explain to me - please :lol:. By the way, who are you billing these internet hours to??

Access is apparently what the name of the game is now. If ND would have had a 3 or 7 day resident season - would have been accepted much easier than shutting people off public land (especially their kids).

Really does not impact me personaly, but PH could be impacted by some stupid esculating border battle.

Gophies are waiting to ease their schedule with DI basketball games against ND teams. Wait those Canadian BB players are lining up to fill the teams too.

Yah - yah Fetch ==> why is some of the best ND hockey players go to the U of M and some damn good MN boys attend UND ==> because the world does not end at the Red River. Either way!!

While Fetch and Dan may not care - plenty of ND fisherman would rather fish east rather than west of home.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
842 Posts
Huns! Let's keep dueling Dan.

No better ND upland game bird.

Huntable in every county until the wet summer of 1993. Even the RRV once supported huntable populations. After 10 long agonizing years they are finally making a comeback.

Nothing better than scouting for geese fields or the next duck pond and running into a nice little covey of huns.

bass vs walleye
upland vs waterfowl .... everyone has their favorites.

NRs traveling to ND for Huns? Dan you would be surprized at the number of upland hunters (w/ pointing dogs) that used to travel to ND for such sport.

MN hunters - you were probably right, just a bonus bird.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,488 Posts
So we should have res. only the first 3 days instead of not using GNF land the first week?I would wager there would be a lot more screaming from sons and daughters that live out of state and come home to hunt the opening weekend than Minn. hunters crying because they can't hunt GNF land during teachers conv.
Besides next year is leap year,which means the calendar moves back 2 days.I would bet that Minn. convention will move back a week to the 21 and 22 of Oct.But the pheasant season will open on Oct. 9th.SO this conflict won't happen next year.The Minn. hunters can all bring their kids and hunt PLOTS during 2004 teachers conv.
 
1 - 20 of 53 Posts
Top