need to bring this up again....hopefully we can use it

So that Guide from La. ??? Brought those idiots up here ???

If this is what Kyle wants as a compromise from todays Herald ???

Then YES by all means we need to get rid of these kinda Guides - I don't think any NR's should be a guide & yeas there should be some kinda qualifications to be one

I'd also say as a compromise to add a limit on how much land each can lease :******:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted on Sun, Mar. 02, 2003

NORTH DAKOTA LEGISLATURE: Will duck bill fly?
Both sides in the debate over nonresident waterfowl hunters have their heels dug in, and compromise remains uncertain
By Brad Dokken
Herald Staff Writer

Halfway through the North Dakota legislative session, players in the debate over managing nonresident waterfowl hunters say compromise is going to be crucial to resolving the controversy. But at this point, at least, each side - resident hunters and guide/outfitting interests - says the other hasn't been willing to bend.

The debate, in this case, centers on the fate of Senate Bill 2048, the so-called "Hunter Pressure Concept" bill. Developed by a team of biologists from the North Dakota Game and Fish Department, the Hunter Pressure Concept would cap nonresident waterfowl hunters based on wetland conditions and the previous year's resident hunting license sales. In lay terms, the bill looks at the state's hunting landscape as a playing field, with room for more nonresident "players" during wet years. Had the plan been in effect last fall, about 22,000 nonresident licenses would have been available instead of the 30,000 that Gov. John Hoeven authorized.

The Senate narrowly passed the bill after amending it to allow the governor to boost the nonresident cap by 25 percent. The measure now has crossed over to the House and will get its first hearing before the House Natural Resources Committee at 8 a.m. Thursday.

Fans and foes

The bill has widespread support among resident hunters, who say the influx of nonresident waterfowlers in recent years has diminished opportunities for quality hunting. Commercial hunting interests see it differently. In that context, Thursday's hearing promises to be a pivotal event in terms of outdoors legislation this year.

"This is probably the single most important hearing date of the entire session," said Dan Bueide of Fargo, an avid resident hunter who's lobbied extensively on behalf of 2048. "What I keep telling people is it might cost you a day of hunting this spring or fall (to attend the hearing), but it's an investment in the future of all hunting."

According to Rep. Darrell Nottestad, R-Grand Forks, how SB2048 fares in the House come Thursday is anyone's guess, in part because a different nonresident hunting bill failed on the House floor. Largely supported by the tourism industry, HB1307 would have managed nonresident waterfowl hunters by imposing a cap of 10,000 for each of three 10-day periods at the beginning of the season. An unlimited number of nonresidents could have hunted for the remainder of the waterfowl season.

Nottestad, who serves on the House Natural Resources Committee, said he wanted to see 1307 pass because it would have created more options for compromise. Now, with only one bill left, Nottestad says compromise could be more difficult to attain.

"I feel, in the end, there is going to have to be a compromise," Nottestad said. "But for that to happen, there has to be something to compromise. That didn't happen, because 1307 was killed on the floor."

Foes vow to fight

While resident hunting groups will continue to support the Hunter Pressure Concept and its caps on nonresidents, commercial hunting interests say they'll maintain efforts to get the bill either amended, or killed completely.

"I obviously am not a big supporter of 2048," said Kyle Blanchfield of Devils Lake, owner of Woodland Resort and president of the North Dakota Guides and Outfitters Association. "I'm disappointed it made it through the Senate. It's an issue we're hoping to see either some amendments to compromise or have 2048 die."

People such as Bueide and Blanchfield stand at opposite ends of the state's hunting landscape. Yet, each think the session so far has gone well in terms of outdoors legislation. From Bueide's perspective, the Senate's passage of 2048 was a victory. But the first half of the session was just a warmup for what's ahead.

"This is not a time to be smug," he said. "All of the gains can be quickly lost if you do things wrong or if you get overly aggressive and don't stay diligent on tracking bills. But that being said, the first half went well."

Bueide has been a driving force behind the Nodak Outdoors Web site e-Tree, an Internet mailing list that offers regular updates on outdoors bills while encouraging resident hunters to get involved in the legislative process.

"It's grass-roots politics meets the information superhighway," he said.

Blanchfield, meanwhile, says HB1050, a measure that calls for tighter restrictions on guides and outfitters, is something the industry has been pushing the past three sessions. The House passed the bill 74-19, and it now awaits action in the Senate Natural Resources Committee.

"Right now, there are almost zero requirements to be a guide," Blanchfield said. "Just slap down $100 and get your license. This goes a long ways to professionalize the industry."

Hard-line views

Yet amid these gains, the waterfowl issue remains a dividing point.

"We've done nothing but try to compromise this issue, and it just seems to me that the strong promoters of 1307 and the opponents of any cap haven't really changed their positions," Bueide said. "I don't want to be too gruff, but it's hard to compromise with someone whose position is 'no compromise.' I think there are a lot of opportunities to look at compromise on this issue, but the other side has to be willing to walk up to the table."

From his position on the opposite side of the fence, Blanchfield says he sees a similar picture. He says the Hunter Pressure formula is flawed because it fails to address periods of peak hunting pressure such as the long teachers convention weekend in mid-October. The bill also fails to address the problem of increased hunting access, he said.

"I think we could come up with some better ideas than we've got on the table right now," Blanchfield said. "We're basically squared off on one format, and it's unfortunate, but it's basically win or lose.

"We certainly sat down at the table, but we haven't seen any direction from 2048 supporters that they're willing to compromise at all," Blanchfield said. "I think our ears are open. We certainly don't want to have to go through this process every two years, either."

Changes ahead?

Based on the tone of the debate so far, Blanchfield says he's skeptical about the prospects for marrying parts of the departed House bill with the Hunter Pressure Concept.

"There's always the possibility for lots of changes, but it takes two to tango," Blanchfield said. "I don't see that happening right now."

Nottestad, the Grand Forks legislator, said he thinks the Hunter Pressure bill is too restrictive on its caps for nonresident hunters, but he doesn't have a higher number in mind.

"I don't think it will go through as it is right now," Nottestad said. "I think there will be some amendments added to it, and that will be the compromise. To be honest with you, I'm not sure where the pendulum is going to swing. I thought at one time that the resort (industry) had more votes. Right now, it could be up in the air."

Ever the optimist, Bueide says he thinks a middle ground still is within reach.

"The process should be about stepping off the goal lines and trying to get to the 50-yard line," Bueide said. "That's what I'm hoping to see here, is that these issues don't tear North Dakota apart. But there's so much room for compromise and so many things that could be done to address the primary concerns of both sides, and I just hope that somewhere come April, we meet on the 50-yard line."

For the time being, however, those goal posts are a long ways apart.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

& as was said in that SC site - We have to pass a Law Banning the Mullet :roll:

Good question about guides being able to carry firearms the whole season. Would be hard to enforce without a sting operation at every guiding operation, and then it probably wouldn't mean anything in terms of the fines they might get.

My son and I hunted a farm in SW ND a couple of years ago where the farmer was nice enough to accompany us during the entire 2 day hunt for upland game. We had paid $25.00/day per hunter which I'd consider a fair price since we had to arrange all other accomadations ourselves. The point here is that the farmer carried a shotgun and played flusher for us as we don't have a dog. We shot our 12 bird limit by ourselves with no trouble what so ever. When I asked him why he carried a gun he mentioned that many of the people who hunted his land couldn't shoot very well and he has to "help" them fill their limits. Anyway, it's not just in waterfowl hunting where the guides help to fill limits. By the way, this farmer explained the reason he charges to hunt is, 1.He wants to know who's on the land and 2. the money pays for the millet bales he buys to feed the deer and pheasants through the winter.