North Dakota Fishing and Hunting Forum banner

My Perspective

10901 Views 43 Replies 18 Participants Last post by  hansonni
I wanted to take a moment and share a perspective that I am confident will offend some on this board. First let me tell you about me. I am a nonresident hunter that has enjoyed North Dakota hunting for the past several years. I come up and stay three weeks. Hunt ducks the first week and then Pheasants and Sharptails the next two. I am there with my father and brother and some years a friend or two. We stay at a motel, eat at the restaurant and visit the connivance stores in the small towns in the Western third of the state. I respect the land I hunt as well as the people I meet. I am greeted enthusiastically by those who own the establishments I visit. I, to date, have hunted land that is public access.

Many of the store owners discussed with me their view of the stupidity of capping or limited nonresident hunters. A restaurant owner in Dickinson told me that this was the most profitable time of the year for him because of the out of state hunters. A radio station claimed every hotel/motel room in the city was filled for the pheasant opener. My credit card revealed that I spent a little over $1,900.00 on my trip this year.

Resident North Dakota sportsman are allowing themselves to be perceived as egocentric individuals only concerned with their own experience at the COST of others. This is not the impression I would hope you intend to leave. A quick review of the posting here would lead most to believe that the political concerns of some louder individuals on this page is (1) reduce competition for my hunting opportunities, (2) keep my costs low, (3) reduce economic opportunities for others, (4) me, me, me.

I have said it before that I believe a more effective strategy to improve everyone's outcomes is to partner with the broader interest. I strongly believe that the only way to maintain great hunting for EVERYONE is to make great hunting EVERYONE'S interest. You do this not by alienating others and putting your priorities and values ahead of others, but by building a coalition of common interests.

The continuation of great hunting in North Dakota is dependent on;
· Great Habitat

Great habitat will be available as long as it is in the interest of the farmer/ranch to maintain it. Financially we (resident and nonresident) as sportsman need to be prepared to contribute to the cost of maintaining wetlands, creating shelter and food plots, and managing with a mind on wildlife production. Some here are quick to point out that the state owns the wildlife. That may be true but the farmer/rancher carries the bulk of the responsibility for raising that wildlife.
· Public Access
Publicly funded access programs need to be expanded. A culture of being thankful and appreciative of that access needs to be nurtured by sportsman and also local chamber of commerce members.
· Management
Population management based on sound research is needed to adjust season lengths, limits, and harvest techniques. By maximizing wildlife revenues through license fees and other taxes, great habitat can be sustained and expanded. Great habitat increases wildlife populations. Increased populations can sustain greater harvest.

What can sportsman do?
· Recognize that either all interests win or lose together on these issues.
· Support initiatives that increase (not limit) sportsman recreational days. Beyong the obvious interst of the sportsman it is the interest of the businessman and will lead to increase wildlife revenues.
· Be willing to financially support through higher license costs (both resident and nonresident) funding wildlife programs.
· Acknowledge that the farmer/rancher should not be expected to provide use of their property for your recreation without compensation. Persons who golf don't expect it to be free. We as sportsman should value our heritage to the point we will financially support it.
· Realize that those who feed their family by operating a convenience store, gas station, restaurant, sporting goods store, or hotel benefit from nonresident hunters.

Specifically I would like to see the following type of initiatives pursued as opposed to what appears to be a fear based strategy that is aimed at limiting the number of others and hoping everything else will stay the same approach.
§ Increase the number of waterfowl management zones (to say 12 or so) and require state duck stamps for each zone which are valid for one week and no more than one stamp valid at anyone time. This may spread out the pressure and increase revenues). If the biologists believe capping each zone each week is needed then I would support that idea.
§ Institute a "Hunting Guide Tax" on person's utilizing this option. Moneys should be used to secure public access and address leasing by outfitters.
§ Person's utilizing the services of a guide should not be allowed to utilize public access lands.
§ Establish a resident goose season stamp for the early season.
§ Institute Upland Game Stamp valid for 5 day periods. Allow multiple purchases if desired.
§ Increase (double) resident and nonresident license fees.
§ Offer financial incentives ($1 to $2 an acre) to all persons entering into CRP contracts to sign on a public access lease for the length of the contract.

I realize that these ideas would significantly increase the license cost to average hunters. However, I purchase decoys, guns, shells, cloths, dogs, dog food, etc., because of how much I value the experience of hunting. As a nonresident going from $100.00 licensing costs to say $300.00 is not going to deter me and I suspect it will not deter many others. The last statement is especially true if the hunting and access becomes even better as I think it will. The approach I offer here serves the landowners needs, the business owners needs, the sportsman's needs, and the resources needs.

…. Just my thoughts …
See less See more
1 - 6 of 44 Posts

It's not offensive because it's different, but because it lacks internal consistency, is blatantly unfair to res. sportsmens, and is self serving while pretending not to be.

Please think about what you write:
The hotels are full, but you think more NR's should come in.
Farmers are responsible for all habitat and game production, but you hunt public land.
Capacity is a fixed resource, and there are already two or more groups for every active field, but you want more folks to come in.
You think caps are "stupid" but later you support them.

(Frankly, the third person rhetorical technique you use makes me sick.)
YOU perceive us as egocentric individuals - and you are sadly mistaken.
YOU would like to cast it is reducing economic opportunities, whereas the truth is limiting the explosion and refusing to sell everything of value in the state.
YOU think it's "me, me , me" - right back at you.
Everyone's interest? - YOU mean YOUR interest.
Common interest means YOUR interest.

Otherwise, all your proposals are old news, or self serving.

See less See more
"P.S.S. - MRN - Why don't you at least fork over the membership money to keep this site active?"

Wow, its all about money to you NR folks. I'm to be impressed you coughed up a couple bucks to the site? Is this like a pre-pubescent dare? A juvenile macho thing? Are you playing on Daddy's computer again??? In the off chance you're actually post-pubescent, I'll choose to send anybody $$ if and when I decide I would like to. No other reason, certainly not you. You kill me.

Now go ask someone over the age of 12 why farmers can't drain wetlands when every they want to, as you suggested.


I'm terribly sorry that your undergraduate studies are not paying off. The answers you seek are pretty obvious. Perhaps you have had course in US government. The very same rationale governing national autonomy applies to state autonomy.

Consider, for a second, US immigration policy. The US limits the number of folks comming into and staying in the US, many of them better educated, harder working, with less sense of entitlement than americans. Why is that? The US could easily "brain drain" the rest of the world. Everyone of the minimum wage earners around the world would be glad to earn minimum wage here. The national economic impact of an open imigration policy would be huge. Why do think that doesn't occur? What do you think the downside would be?

I have lots of Chinese friends - they think the US could handle 30-40 miillion chinese immigrants a year. If you were consistent in your views, you would support an unlimited immigration policy. Is that indeed true? Do you think the potential economic boom is reason enough?

See less See more
So you're saying more immigrants will increase pressure on jobs and lower the quality/quantity/opportunity for jobs for everyone. And that's bad.

HHummm, sounds nothing like the exploding NR number problem here.....

You're quite mistaken Slick. Only a small minority might be hurt by unlimited immigration. We could triple the GDP. It would make the economy take off like a rocket. Good for everyone.

I sell chinese food - wholesale! I want 30 million more customers. Won't hurt me, or us connected folk. Only positive for me too. We wanna make money! Screw the poor people and their quality of life, there aren't many of them - 10%-20% tops - who cares - they are a minority? Screw em - let everyone in - Yahoo - economic development!! The country will prosper.

Nope. I still don't see no allegory.


Oh my bad man - I had you pegged as a 4th year UND freshman who had yet to pass english comp. My bad, really. Still, you can't quite grasp the parallels involving state autonomy, sovereignty, and control of a fix or limited resource. Yet another reason for liberal arts education...

So, you first hunted ND 6 weeks ago and you feel you have a real good understanding of the issue??? Good luck.

1 - 6 of 44 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.