North Dakota Fishing and Hunting Forum banner
1 - 20 of 67 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,062 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The Pingree outfitter, CK, who always forgets to mention that her family runs a commercial hunting operation, had a long opinion in the Forum this morning urging everyone to call their legislators on SB2048.

Good idea!!! Everyone that supports a fair and balanced way of setting limits needs to CALL or EMAIL their leg and senators TODAY to urge a
DO PASS!!! Don't wait call ASAP! I'm going to try to call 5 friends, at least, that I know that waterfowl hunt and get them to call. I bet everyone knows someone that hasn't called or emailed yet. Tell them we also "embrace" tourism and commerce for our communites only at a level that ensures everyone, NR and resident a quality experience.

1-888-635-3447 Message Center.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,191 Posts
I believe MS. Krapp is full of herself, if you know what I mean. She talked agout new money and not about how much residents spend!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
533 Posts
Call the number and urge passage of SB 2048. Only takes about 45 secondes.

Other views: Hunter Pressure Concept is too easy to manipulate
By Connie Krapp
The Forum - 01/29/2003
An article on page A5, and continued on A10 of the Dec. 2, 2002, issue of The Forum indicates that Sandy Barnes and Larry Knoblich of the North Dakota Sportsmen's Alliance say their group will "eventually turn its attention to limiting nonresidents who pheasant hunt and fish in the state."

If these sportsmen have their way, we may as well put up a "NO TRESPASSING" sign on all borders of North Dakota! Where will this madness end? It certainly will not end if the Senate Natural Resources Committee votes to pass a piece of legislation that it will be considering Thursday and Friday. The legislation would limit nonresident waterfowl hunters from entering the state.

Senate Bill 2048 would implement the Hunter Pressure Concept, a plan that would read the water index and come up with a formula that would set the number of total waterfowl licenses allowed. It would allow resident hunters first crack at waterfowl licenses and then offer nonresidents whatever was left. The bill could be easily manipulated. It leaves a big loophole: resident hunters could easily sew up all available licenses by purchasing licenses for family members who have no intentions of participating. Unthinkable? Consider the distribution of deer licenses in North Dakota!

To pretend that North Dakota Game and Fish came up with HPC on its own, for the express purpose of managing wildlife, is a sham. It came up with the plan after months and months of intense political pressure from sportsmen's groups. These sportsmen insist that, despite unprecedented duck numbers and fewer TOTAL numbers of hunters (in 1975, North Dakota had 74,000 hunters hunting 2 million ducks. In 2001, we had 66,000 hunters hunting 5.4 million ducks), they just can't get a quality hunt in North Dakota.

Rather than seeking workable solutions to their perceived hunting quality problem, however, the sportsmen have set their sights on one target: the nonresident. If there REALLY is a hunting pressure problem in North Dakota, wouldn't you think that other solutions could be considered? Changing the length of the season, changing daily limits, shortening the length of a daily hunt for residents and nonresidents - there are other ways to address the issue. Even if we DID have a hunting pressure problem, there are options other than turning away nonresidents and the $34 million in direct expenditures (NEW MONEY) and $79 million in gross business volume that they bring to the state.

If you believe that North Dakota needs commerce from nonresident hunters - if you believe that we should embrace tourism and commerce in our communities - please contact members of the Natural Resources Committee before Thursday. That is when the seven senators will be discussing Senate Bill 2048. A phone call to 1-888-635-3447 or 701-328-3373, or a fax to 701-328-3615 will allow you to leave a simple message to these senators. Please call them today and ask them to vote "do not pass" on Senate Bill 2048.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,645 Posts
Ms. Connie, (I am an outfitter, but forgot to mention it), Krapps article can be read at http://www.in-forum.com/articles/?id=26656

Salient points she forgot to mention:
The Alliance promotes ASK BEFORE YOU ENTER POSTERS.
Outfitters, like Ms Krapp promotes NO HUNTING WITHOUT PAYING.
The Alliance promotes good relationships with farmers.
Outfitters promote the radical backlash outlash just trash option.
The Alliance, the NDWF, and United Sportsmen of North Dakota promotes the Hunter Pressure Concept, SB2048 that was passed 15 for-2 against, by the Judiciary B Committee.
Outfitters always forget this vote, too much to remember.
The Alliance believes there is too much unregulated hunting pressure.
Outfitters say there is no hunting pressure, lots and lots and lots of room.

Ask yourself this. Outfitters say there is no pressure problem. Why is land posted? Because farmers want to know who is on their land. But if there is no pressure problem the land would not be posted because no one is hunting. If there is no pressure problem, why do outfitters lease 100,000s of acres? If there is no pressure why spend the money for the lease? Hummmm. Anybody see the holes in this water can?

Field Hunter is right-zip a message to your legislators NOW and ask them to not only support SB2048, but also to promote it to their fellow legislators.
And send a message to the Forum boys at Lou Ziegler, [email protected] and Jack Zaleski, [email protected]
They would just love to know what you are thinking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
Dick Monson said:
Ask yourself this. Outfitters say there is no pressure problem. Why is land posted? Because farmers want to know who is on their land. But if there is no pressure problem the land would not be posted because no one is hunting. If there is no pressure problem, why do outfitters lease 100,000s of acres? If there is no pressure why spend the money for the lease? Hummmm. Anybody see the holes in this water can?
I don't agree that all farmers post their land just so they can know who is on it. My Dad posts his land to keep other people off it so that family members or friends from out of town can hunt on it. It doesn't have anything to do with hunting pressure. It only takes 1 person to screw up a hunt.

My Dad's land is exactly that, HIS land. He can do what he wants with it regardless of what anybody thinks. If he posts every acre and doesn't let anyone hunt, that's his choice. If he wanted to lease it to an outfitter, that's his choice. I would strongly argue against that but in the end, it's up to him. It's not up to me. And it's definately not up to somebody that doesn't own the land.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,645 Posts
Miller, bury them in responses! Six feet deep.

Siouxperson--NOBODY.....NOBODY....is telling landowners what they can or cannot do. Where are you reading that? Where does this off the wall statement always come from? Outfitters. Outfitters. Would you put up a STOP sign if there was no road? If hunting was completely outlawed, do you really think you would see NO HUNTING signs?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
Dick,

You don't think indirectly you are telling landowners what they can do with their land with a cap? Let's say a more restrictive cap is enacted next year. Let's say a farmer leases out his land to hunting to either a non-resident or an outfitter, happens all the time in ND. Let's say that the non-resident or outfitter no longer leases that land from that farmer as a result of the cap. It's a win for residents potentially as the land is again available for everyone in ND, assuming of course that the farmer doesn't harbor ill-will towards resident hunters after maneuvering them out of a second income. I think a cap directly dictates what they can do with their land in terms of leasing. Simply stated, it reduces their available pool.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,326 Posts
I sure as hell am glad I don't get the forum. After reading all the stuff you guys have posted I don't even think I'd use it to wipe my A$$. :******:

Time to get on the phone and call my reps!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,062 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
That's kind of a stretch. Nobody has ever said they are trying to tell the farmer or rancher what to do with is land. What some of you seem to fail to understand is the concept that the ducks are not an unlimited resource.
The people stepping up that are against the caps either lack an understanding of how many ducks there are in ND at any given time and how fragile that resource is during the migration or are outfitters in it for a buck and don't care about the resource. It's frustrating sometimes hearing about all the "economic" input hunting does for ND but it seems very few if any of those people care how long the "party" is going to last, either from a yearly or resources stand point. It seems it's just full speed ahead without any regard to the resource or the quality of the sport. I just can't see, in terms of duck hunting, why the local communities wouldn't rather have the ducks around longer, with hunters supporting the communities longer, than to presure the ducks constantly and drive them out of the area entirely. Or maybe it isn't the local communities but the outfitters who are commercializing the sport who are doing all the complaining.
I wonder?

While I'm on this thread which started out talking about an outfitter, I have to say that I don't hear the outfitters talking any compromise. Many of the bills on hunting seem to be a direct link to making the outfitters more money with little regard to the resource. Hopefully we have some legislators that will be able to see through to the real issues at hand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,645 Posts
lasalle, if the only issue was a second income stream for a farmer I would agree with you. However now that income stream is totaly dependent on saturating the available market with hunters, forcing the highest paying customers to use an outfitter or lease. The remaining hunters will leave the sport, or reduce their days in the field, which will impact the businesses that depended on free-lance hunting. Do not these businesses also have a standing position? As verticaly integrated outfitters replace the main street business is not the economic impact merely an economic displacement? The voters decide the game law and are under no obligation to facilitate customers for one business or another. If a farmer-outfitter provides an exceptional service he will still be in business. If he intends to flood the market to get the best nuggets for himself I do not believe the people who own the government and the resource inventory will allow it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,645 Posts
And one more "nugget" for nonresidents to contemplate. When Connie Krapp forgot to mention she is an outfitter, she also forgot that her husband and other outfitters, during testimony last week on HB 1307, requested that NR hunters be required to use a guide. I believe he went so far as to target Minnesota residents. This was at the same time she testified for no limit on nonresidents. Hummm. Sounds like a deal.

Another prominent outfitter in south central ND proposed the same idea at the Pheasantgate advisory meeting in Jamestown last winter. Proving if you boil it long enough, it floats to the top.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
Did anyone on this sight take any economics or business classes? Where do we live, in Communist Russia????? I can't take it any longer and must respond to your idea that you are not telling a land owner what he can and can't do with his land. Anytime you limit someone from making a living off his land you are limiting its use and the owners ability to make a living. Yes, I agree that it is too bad out of state people purchase land and only allow themselves to use it. I do not like this, but I am sure not going to tell the original land owner who he can and cannot sell to. This is America and the FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM does work and should be let to run its course. Same goes for the land owner who leases his or her land to an outfitter. It is there choice as to do so and no one, not even the state, should tell a private land owner who they can and cannot rent to. If I were a guide, I would be fighting all limitations on my right to rent land ect. The USF&W service does an amazing job on limiting the "resource" and mother nature will dictate when and how much hunting is done each and every year. Why doesn't everyone quit *****ing and start looking for good hunting land next year right now. Sure would be easier to get good spots with "honey" than with all the vinegar being spread on this sight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
375 Posts
economics 101-I view it a little different, just because we live in America does not mean that you can do anything you want with your land. There are a lot of activities that landowners are restricted from doing on their land that if allowed could provide a lot of money to them. You cannot grow marijuana on your land even though this would be a lucrative crop, you can't run a brothel, you can't open a casino except on Native American Reservations, and on and on and on. By your argument, this is infringement on their rights since we are limiting them from earning income on this. Now I know your argument is that these are illegal activities and you are right. My only point is that people have never been allowed to do anything they want with their land. I personally believe that any commercialization of wildife is an immoral act. Selling access to wildlife should be just as illegal as selling sex, drugs, or any other illicit activity. Landowners still have the right to allow people to hunt on their land or they have the right to allow absolutely NO ONE on it if that is their prerogative. It crosses the line when they let you on for a fee. It is essentially selling a public resource by charging for access. Am I radical on this stance? You bet, but I would argue that a large amount of hunters in this state have similar views. We would never have wildlife populations where they are today if it wasn't for actions of sportsmen in the early part of the last century. By their demands of wildlife laws and being willing to foot the bill, we have the wildlife populations we have today.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
Muzzy,

Remember then, morality cannot be legislated. It has been tried many times and always fails. Your argument is purely, as many have and are stating, one of personal preference and not one of science or biology. This, by your own words, shows why SB2048 is about managing people and not biology.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
375 Posts
The examples I listed have no legal basis other than morality and they have been deemed illegal. I fail to see the difference here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Nor should they. I have an inlaw that used to have some good cover on his land, and any dry season he gets the chance, he plows it all up (many times slough bottoms), then complains that the land holds no moisture, or floods easily. I always hear about how much farmers and landowners respect the land, but don't believe it much anymore. Come down to Ne. where a jackrabbit does not exist. I though they could live anywhere when I lived in ND.

Anyway, I think that is a poor statement about being able to do anything you want with it. You may own the rights to farm it or whatever, but at one time nobody owned it.

j
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
108 Posts
Dear Mr. Econ, you are correct in saying the landowner has the right to lease/charge/whatever with their land. It may not be right or morally sound, as muzzy pointed out, but until deemed illegal, they still have the right. However, I am a sportsmen of this state who has just as much ownership in our wildlife resource as the farmer/rancher who may be leasing/guiding etc, it is not my responsibility to make sure he is supplied with a single file line of hunters from Wis and MN. Wildlife is managed by our state wildlife agencies, not landowners. Until that management is turned over to landowners, this will never be and never has been a "landowner rights issue." If your case is true, we are severely violating landowner rights with ND's deer hunting licenses? But we all know that is not true. You must have been employed with enron when you took econ 101?
 
1 - 20 of 67 Posts
Top