North Dakota Fishing and Hunting Forum banner
1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
As a nonresident lover of ND, I have been following the developments lately with quite a bit of interest. Most of the time, people are stating they want to protect the resource. I am all for that. But sometimes, the resident hunters want what I would term an unfair advantage over the nonresident hunter. A quote such as the following is really disturbing to me and makes me wonder whether some resident ND folks are really after protecting the resource or just trying to fill their bag ...

"With 1358, there is going to be substantially increased PLOTS ground. While these parcels get hit hard and become much less productive as the season goes on, many of the PLOTS parcels in pheasant country are very productive early on. If the PLOTS parcels are going to get emptied of birds, why shouldn't we be the ones doing the emptying? This bill will allow many residents who have been unable to hunt the first week in prime areas of the state in recent years the chance to do so EVERY YEAR. As such, it creates new and meaningful quality hunting opportunities for resident hunters. This bill improves hunting opportunities from the status of today. As such, it is good for resident sportspersons."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
843 Posts
Perhaps you misunderstand what is meant by "the resource". The resource in question is "quality hunting opportunities", not ducks or geese or pheasants. The goal is to preserve our common hunting heritage so that our kids and grand-kids have an opportunity to enjoy getting outdoors, rather than becoming urbanized crackhead droids.

Glad I could clear it all up for you.

M.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
MRN,
You cannot have the latter without the former. If the wildlife resource is not there, the hunting opportunity will not be there either. It is interesting you talk about your kids and grandkids (assuming that neither are grown ups), what if they move out of ND? How would you feel then about that quote, if they lived across the border in MT, MN, or SD?

To all, where does this resident vs nonresident thing stop?? I am genuinely concerned about the effect it will have on our kids and grandkids. Most states are getting on the resident-only benefits bandwagon. I have recently learned that is a push for MN to consider raising the nonresident fishing license and putting restrictions on them. It is tempting to jump on that bandwagon in my home state and be all for it. But I am not. I am looking long term and that isnt the answer. Before long the way it is going, all states will be taking part and it will be virtually impossible to hunt or fish out of state. Maybe in the short term that sounds like a good idea, but do we really want a world where only the rich can afford to go on a hunting or fishing trip?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,506 Posts
Dino, if you've been following this session real closely, you'll know that many on this site have supported a number of nonresident friendly bills and fought against a number of nonresident unfriendly bills. We've promoted 2227 (youth non-resident), a tightened form of 2242 (nonresident September goose), 2322 (nonresident full-time students get a resident non-lottery license) and 2363 (significantly reduced cost for nonresident doe tags). I addition, we helped hog-house 1224 (no motorized duck boats, now just a authorization to use PLI money to establish waterfowl rest areas) and defeat 1448 (nonresidents must designate the land on which they'll hunt). We've also promoted landowner-friendly bills and/or helped defeat non-friendly bills (e.g. 1380 and 1501).

1223 does not go as far as most residents think is fair or reasonable given the huge increase recently in the number of nonresident upland hunters and the resulting competition/pressure in most areas. That said, 1223 is still much better than the situation today.

Most of the PLOTS parcels get worked over very hard and become much less productive fairly early in the season. 1223 is good for pheasant-belt commerce, as it gives them an extra week one-half of all years. The "bone" for residents under 1223 is they get first crack at the public grounds for the first week every year. If you've hunted in the prime areas recently, you'll know the PLOTS parcels attract ridiculously heavy pressure opening weekend, with rigs camped and ringed around them. 1223 will give residents meaningful hunting opportunities for the coveted first week that don't exist today, even in the prime areas. With 1358, the PLOTS progam will expand further, giving even greater effect to 1223. How and why is this win-win for pheasant commerce and resident hunters unreasonable? This sort of compromise should be what all the players (those with a say in the matter) work towards on all of the issues.

The hammering of the PLOTS grounds is what it is. The fact that 1223 will give residents the chance to do the hammering is a very good reason for resident hunters to get behind 1223. I won't hang my head for that rationale to get behind 1223 nor the position of many sportspersons on legislation as a whole this session. Despite the rhetoric, most sportspersons of this state have acted in a very pragmatic and reasonable manner and can hold their heads very high.

By now, you should know that the vast majority of resident hunters are not anti-nonresident. And, it is not being anti-nonresident to support certain legislation that gives residents some advantage over nonresidents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
843 Posts
Dan,
Thanks for the very reasonable, thoughful, and well formulated response.

Dino,
Sorry, but unlike Dan and many others here, I'm not terribly sympathetic to your specific problem. Heck, I can't even hunt deer on my own land, without a guide or "hunter host" because I moved away. I made my choices. I live with them. I foresee my children and grandchildren learning the same responsibility.

M.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Dan,
I was careful to say that SOMETIMES residents want an unfair advantage over nonresidents. I in no way discounted that some good things happened at the legislature, a lot of it due to efforts by you and people like you. But the attitude portrayed in the quote I posted, in my opinion, goes beyond the line. The average nonresident cannot afford to pay for private land in the pheasant belt. So he is left with PLOTS land that have been hammered by residents or paying for private land. Not real good choices in my opinion. I would not have as much of a problem if it was private land that was only open to residents. After all, the landowner pays the taxes on the land, he can control access as he sees fit. But the PLOTS land I paid for. The nonresident more than the resident I think (IF that is where my license money is going--I am admitting up front I don't have the details on this, but my license money goes to fund something substantial and I hope a goodly chunk is going to PLOTS lands). So I am carrying my load in helping to pay for PLOTS and residents get to "empty the birds". Residents have a lot of advantages already over the NR. Lower cost of license, time and opportunity to develop access, time and opportunity to hunt being the biggest in my mind. Where does this gouge the nonresident stop? Everybody talks about the $ the NR pours into the economy, how about the $ it pours into the G&F to fund projects? A question for you, if no NR showed up to hunt ND this fall, would the PLOTS program exist the following year? If it somehow made it, what other programs would be cut? I am following this stuff fairly closely and the people on this board are doing the best job they can for their interest and I believe are trying to be fair through their eyes. However, my point is this. Your interpretation of fair and mine sometimes differ and if there are enough people like me out there, you will turn your state into a destination that people will avoid. That will hurt you. Let me repeat that. That will hurt the resident hunter as the money generated by the NR, both to the economy and to the G&F funds a lot of stuff with regards to hunting. I guess I could sum it up like this, be careful what you wish for cuz you just might get it! Please, take a step back from time to time and consider your (future?) son, who lives in an adjoining state and is a NR to ND. Will he be able to hunt in the years to come??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
496 Posts
Interestingly enough, I am one of those sons who moved to an adjoining state. I moved from South to North, and currently in order to go home and hunt ducks on my traditional hunting grounds, I will have to lottery for a licence, pay $100 for waterfowl, and not have any guarantees. In fact, last fall I never popped a cap on a SD webfoot. My NR pheasant liscence also costs 100, and I will not be able to hunt some areas in the first crack. And you know what? I am 100% behind all of it. Those rules in SD have preserved waterfowling so that people can truly go there with foresight and planning and have a great experiance. It hasnot stopped the commercialization of the ringnecks, but did allow for a trend setting WIA program to develope. Crowds are not overwhelming, and so on. If I can only go every other year, so be it. Sure it hurts to pay the coin, but that is what is. We all want to have everything. Well that is not possible, and the only way these rural states can protect themselves from the overwhelming disparity in disposable income is through limitations and fees. I vote yes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
375 Posts
The thought that we would have no PLOTS program next year if we restrict nonresidents is not telling the whole truth. We did not need PLOTS programs before the overwhelming number of nonresidents started pouring in and the leasing/outfitting that arose with it. They go hand in hand, take away the commercial part of hunting and we wouldn't need to spend all of the money in PLOTS
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,506 Posts
Dino, first as to the "nonresident perspective." That's one I feel pretty qualified to address. I grew up in MN (Moorhead). Seven years at UND. Left ND in 90. Moved to the Cities in 92, and hunted ND as a nonresident from 92-97. Moved back to ND in 98. Hunting was not the only reason I moved back, but I would not have moved back if not for the hunting either.

In all likelihood, one or both of my boys will leave ND at some point for at least some period of time. If they do, they'll base their decision on many factors and will do what they feel is best, all things considered. If there are certain nonresident restrctions and they wish to come to ND to hunt, we'll work around them. The fact that they don't have the same program as someone else their age who, for a myriad of reasons, decided to stay, doesn't seem unreasonable and so be it if it helped keep the kid here who saw hunting as one of the determining factors.

Others on this site can do a better job than me explaining the current funding of PLOTS. What I can tell you is that under 1358, as $5 increase for everyone will be allocated to PLOTS. Under 1391, a $5 increase in deer licenses is also targeted to PLOTS. As of today, all species and licenses considered, the vast amount of these additional funds will come from residents.

If you want to explore "gouging", check into the cost of a nonresident turkey tag in your fair state or IA. Check into the costs of NR big game tags in other states. While increases are slated for ND this session, you also need to step back, take a breath and consider the net effect. Under 1358, a nonresident may participate in world-class waterfowling (if we get part of the genie back in the bottle) for 14 days for $85. For $85, a nonresident can participate in probably the nation's second best pheasant hunting for 10 days for $85. If feathers are your bag, it's pretty hard to argue about bang-for-the-buck in ND at these prices. We don't want nonresidents to be disouraged from enjoying the things that cause many of us to live here, and I very much doubt if 1223 or 1358 will do so. The geometric increase in nonresident hunters in ND the past several years would indicate otherwise.

Resident hunters would prefer that 1223 extend to all lands. But, it would be innappropriate to swap it into only private lands, as that would have very little affect on pressure relief. Most non-fee ground is already used by residents today - landowners and/or their close friends, relatives, etc. Many resident hunters wishing to hunt the prime areas don't fall into one of those catagories, and while they may be able to access very good non-fee ground later in the year, can't opening weekend. As I stated earlier, 1223 will allow many resident hunters the chance to hunt prime areas of the state during the coveted first week who have not been able to do so for several recent years.

All in all, I've been very proud of the message and method of resident sportspersons this session. I'm sorry if that one statement offended you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
'Gouge the nonresident hunter' not so fun

The high-stakes 'game' of charging more to out-of-state
shooters is taking its lumps at the hands of the courts

By Ron Schara
Host of ESPN2's
Backroads with Ron & Raven

That popular ol' game of "gouge the nonresident hunter" - played so increasingly by state legislatures and state wildlife agencies - appears to be heading for the U.S. Supreme Court.

The case involves an Arizona ploy to restrict nonresidents to only 10 percent of certain big game licenses, including elk.

Normally, state wildlife agencies get away with bashing hunters from other states because, well, they have no power, no vote and little political support because most resident hunters understandably enjoy their me-first status and cheap license fees.

Only this time it didn't work in Arizona.

Months ago, a lawsuit was filed in Arizona on behalf of nonresident hunters challenging the 10 percent restriction on the allotment of big game licenses. As expected, a state court ruled in favor of the Arizona Game and Fish Department

However, the nonresident hunters appealed and, holy license fees, they won.

Last August, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower court's ruling and said the limitations on nonresidents were an unlawful restriction of interstate commerce.

According to the Associated Press, the federal appellate ruling marked the first time the court sided with nonresident hunters in questions involving state powers.

But now the plot thickens.

Arizona asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the lower court ruling, but last month the Supreme Court declined.

The case was returned to the lower court, giving Arizona a chance to prove that a nonresident restriction was necessary to manage wildlife.

It also may mean Arizona will have to modify its gouging game and, hopefully, give nonresidents a fairer and more reasonable license allotment.

But let's not hold our collective out-of-state breath. In truth, the game of gouge the nonresident hunters is out of control in many states:

In Montana, a nonresident elk hunter must pay a license fee that ranges from $588 to $925. A resident elk hunter pays $16.

To add insult, only 11,500 nonresidents are allowed to hunt elk in Montana for the lower fee, although most of the elk live on land owned by all Americans.

For Montana residents, there is no limitation and no drawing for elk licenses, which are sold over the counter at convenience stores.

In Wyoming, a nonresident deer hunter pays license fees ranging from $220 to $320. A resident forks over $5 to $28.

To hunt antelope, the nonresident Wyoming fee varies from $195 to $295; a resident pays $5 to $25. To hunt deer in Iowa, the nonresident fee is $220.50; a resident's fee is about eight times cheaper, $26.

In North Dakota, it's nonresident waterfowlers who have the wrath of resident duck and goose hunters. State law restricts nonresidents to only 14 days of waterfowl hunting or two 7-day seasons out of the state's 60-day season.

In addition, the number of waterfowl permits for nonresidents was capped last fall for the first time at 30,000.

To make sure residents "get their ducks first", nonresidents are not allowed to hunt in the first week of the waterfowl season.

Decades ago, South Dakota was one of the first players in the gouging game by forbidding nonresidents to hunt ducks or geese anywhere in the state.

Only when federal officials threatened to withhold federal duck funds did South Dakota finally allow nonresidents to hunt waterfowl … for 10 days only.

Excessive or extreme nonresident restrictions on waterfowling might make for another case in court.

First, waterfowl is a resource controlled by federal law because of the birds' migratory nature.

Second, most states eagerly accept waterfowl management money from federal duck stamp revenue and a nationwide excise tax on firearms and ammunition - all of it from all waterfowlers, resident and nonresident.

Despite the long history of unfair treatment toward nonresidents, most states apparently think the gouging game must go on.

In fact, 22 states have now joined together - including some of the biggest gouging practitioners - to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the Arizona case.

The states are claiming that, without power to limit nonresidents, they'll not be able to manage wildlife populations within their state.

A Montana official frets that the state won't be able to charge nonresidents more for licenses than it does residents.

Most surprising, Minnesota is one of the 22 states, joining the appeal. Surprising because Minnesota hunters are often the nonresidents targeted for high fees and restrictions by neighboring states.

Minnesota is, in fact, a poor player in the gouging game. It's nonresident fishing or hunting fees are never more than about five times the resident fee.

In the hunt for limited wild turkey licenses, Minnesota offers nonresidents the same lottery chance for a turkey permit that residents have.

Does the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources have a fever or something?

Rise up, Minnesota hunters and anglers. Give us residents all of the turkey licenses or give us death. Ban those foreigners. No more nothing for those out-of-state hook and bullet hogs. Set the nonresident walleye limit at zero. Nyet. No deer hunting until the final day of the season. Canoe trips into the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness will be limited to 30 minutes.

Of late, in state after state, dumping on nonresident hunters and anglers is only being fair. Minnesota should join the Union. Being an American today is about getting yours first.

Ron Schara may be reached at [email protected].
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,582 Posts
Old News

Yet another example of a commercial side endorser - looking out for his own best interest & telling his readers & listeners only one side (while not telling the rest of the story) & not caring or thinking about what makes sense for ND Residents - I would not consider him much of a Real Hunter, or a friend of ND

Plus Arizona's court has made alot of errors in the past - If that ruling were upheld - like you wish - it would open a can of worms that would ruin alot more than hunting - States rights should rule in the end & I'm confident they will.

(Now - I wish - I just had confidence in our State officials) :eyeroll:

Hopefully in the future it can be turned around & we can always keep ND unique & special.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Dan,

a quote from your post "....will allow many resident hunters the chance to hunt prime areas of the state during the coveted first week who have not been able to do so for several recent years." Why cant resident hunters hunt the prime areas? It is not that they "can't", it is that they dont like the pressure there, right? Nobody likes hunting in a pumpkin patch, I can understand that, but they have the same access as anybody and to imply otherwise is wrong. You mentioned MN turkey licenses being high priced, do you really wanna play the "which state is worse to NR" game? I dont, no good will come of it. The issue isnt MN or MT or AZ. The issue is what is currently the "hot topic" in ND. ND is a great state and has a tremendous hunting heritage and opportunity. I (nor anyone) wants to hurt the resource, but just want fair access. And this is just my opinion. I am not trying to tell you that you are wrong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,949 Posts
Dino can a ND resident spear fish in your state, if I have a lake cabin am I treated the same as a resident on taxes? No I am not for I am not a resident. If I wanted the privliges of a MN resident and all that goes with it, then I would have picked Moorhead to live instead of Fargo. Residency has privliges tha nonresidents do not. We have the duty to vote in elections for people to represent us. That is what is happening in ND today. Regardless of the outcome of any of the bills connected to hunting, the elected officals have been given the task of doing the RESIDENTS business.It may affect nonresidents and considerations how it affects them is part of the process of determining what is best for the RESIDENTS of ND. Don't like the laws or makeup of the legislature. move here get involved and make your voice heard. We as sportsmen of ND pay taxes that support our county and rural roads, we purchase gas and clothes and other things the entire year in our state. These actions and the choice of living in ND should provide favored treatment. I do understand your plight and concern but all states favor there own residents in some manner in regards to wildlife and outdoor activites.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,506 Posts
Dino, your can't vs. don't want to question is right. Very few of the ND upland hunters I know consider it any form of positive hunting experience to hunt under conditions where your two biggest concerns are getting shot and trying to figure out a way to work a PLOTS parcel to get a decent pass before being cut-off by another group or two or three. That's the state of things on opening weekend on public ground in the prime areas. I stand corrected on the technical can't/won't issue; I guess I was speaking more from a practical standpoint - if that's hunting, most ND hunters I know would rather stay home and rake leaves.

With the huge increase in upland pressure, I don't understand why you feel it's the sin of all sins that residents might get this one little perk to hunt the PLOTS parcels for the first week. Let me turn it around. It almost seems like your statements and those of Mr. Schara waggle your fingers at any state that may somehow deny you the RIGHT to enjoy the same rights as their residents on any outdoors issues. At the risk of making this ridiculous, because some portion of my income is somehow taxed in MI, or MI gets allocated some of my federal tax dollars, or becuase I join the Wolverines booster club, should my child be entitled to attend U. of Mich. at in-state tuition prices? Do I have a right to the more-generous MN public assistance programs because I pay some sales taxes or gas taxes in MN or paid $25 to join the MN historical society. These examples are not far off from the arguements of some who feel they're entitled to every outdoors RIGHT that a ND resident has when it comes to license numbers, days or costs. I'll ask again, given the huge increase in upland pressure and the lesser amount of non-fee ground, does it seem that unreasonable to give residents the first crack at the PLOTS grounds?

Finally, no, I don't want to play the "who treats nonres. worse" game. But, what I do want to understand is how anyone could characterize $85 for either 14 days of watefowling or 10 days of upland hunting as any form of "gouging." And, anyone who does, better look at the relative opportunities and license costs in their own state first. And before you jump on me about the MN fishing, NOBODY'S TALKING ABOUT LIMITING THE THOUSANDS OF NONRESIDENT FISHERMEN IN ND.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Dan,
I havent said that the $85 is out of line. Residents have that advantage. So all of your and everybody's arguments about fees do not apply to my argument. Reasonable costs are justified, just dont make it a rich mans sport.

I am a little confused. Is it "this one little perk to hunt the PLOTS parcels for the first week" or is it "meaningful hunting opportunities for the coveted first week" or "give residents the chance to do the hammering"? On one hand you state it is one little perk, on the other it is a meaningful opportunity...to do the hammering.

I believe my assumption that the PLOTS program is primarily funded by NR dollars must have been mostly correct. So what it boils down to is that ND wants me to fund PLOTS ground so the residents can "empty" or "hammer" the birds. Please forgive me if I don't like that.

I have never stated the "right" to do anything. I consider it a privilege to hunt in MN or ND or wherever. I feel lucky to have the opportunity. I feel that I should have to pay more (a reasonable amount more-not like MT elk license, etc) than a resident. But if I am going to pay more, I should have equal access as well. Why would I want to pay more to get the scraps left over? At what point do you draw the line between resident privileges and NR's? Mebbe next year, since the 1st week of resident only hunting was so great, it is proposed to be the first 2 weeks? Personally I feel that the line can be drawn in two areas. First, NRs should pay a reasonable amount more. Second, if the resources is threatened, a limit should be placed on the number of people allowed to hunt (a cap on licenses). The cap will certainly affect NRs (not that I like that, but that is reality), but also should include possibly residents as well (i.e. bull elk licenses in CO where 10% of limited draw areas are reserved for NRs and 90% to res, but both are turned away).

Ron,
I believe that nonresidents are taxed the same as residents in MN, but that is an example of a money issue and not an access issue. Same as the turkey example. Bottom line is that MN is pretty lenient to NRs compared to other states (ND included if this passes). Access to MN's resources is open to the NR. Maybe this will stop in the future. I hope not. But it very well could because of the "gouge the nonresident" mentality in other states (not just ND). How will you feel if MN passes a law that states that NR must buy a fishing license for $200 and it is only good for 7 days....and you cannot fish until July 1. Do you really think that is that far off if this stuff continues? Geez, for your sake, I hope it doesnt and I dont believe it should happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
426 Posts
I just had a few comments about some of the problems with Arizonas lawsuits. Now I lived in AZ for a long time and due to family have moved to Minnesota. But I feel Arizona residents should have the bigger advantage over NRS. besides it only affects big game (Bear, deer,elk,etc) all of which arent very abundant anyways. I have always had great respect for the GFD in AZ because unlike Minnesotas DNR which seem to be more law enforcement first conservation second the AZ GFD do a great job of managing AZs wildlife! besides anyone can hunt small game there(quail,ducks,geese,grouse,coyote,fox,bobcat,mountainlion,rabbit,etc) One thing AZ wants not to happen is to see their game dissapear because hunting has always been a part of the "desert" lifestyle.And if I'm not mistaken the lawsuits there were started by a guide service out of New Mexico!!! And we all know what we think of guides for profit!!! :******: Anyway that is just my thought. I know I would like to limit NR numbers if my states wildlife were in a threatened state..such as in AZ.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,506 Posts
Dino, scheeeeeez, you're killin' me. And I though real estate lawyers were anal rententive. :D Your focus on isolated words or phrases instead of the context of an entire message is wearing me out. Are you a member of the media?

As to the PLOTS funding issue, someone please enlighten us with facts rather than conjecture. I'm pretty sure my analysis above is correct with respect to the fact that residents will fund the majority of "new money" (isn't that ironic) for the program under 1358 and 1391, but someone let us know how, on the basis of present licensing structures, the program is presently funded. I could be wrong Dino, but I think you'd be surprised.

Some from MN from time to time make the point that nonresidents take away from quality hunting opportunities in regard to things like the black bear hunt and spring turkeys. If that's the case, it would be more than reasonable for MN to institute some special considerations to give residents some preferences to the highly sought-after opportunities, like certain exlusive use periods or certain turkey seasons available only for resident draw or whatever. Same-same here.

It has been the tradition in almost all states to grant residents some preferential treatment. I'm still a little unclear what RIGHT you have to the same other features just because you pay $85 for your license and I pay $15 for mine? Fairness, morality, because you "bought" that right? I think this is one of these issues where perspective is largely tied to zip code.

I'm also not sure what you mean by using "threatened resource" as your measure of when limitations other than reasonable monetary differences are acceptable. If you're talking about the critters themselves, how many "threatened resources" are the subject of open hunting seasons? Certainly not the elk in CO.

As many of us have consitantly stated for quite a while now, the "resource" we're trying to protect with all efforts this session is quality hunting opportunities. In the context of hunting pheasants on opening weekend in the prime areas on public land, that doesn't exist any more. 1223 would restore that for residents. In the land where snow sometimes comes early and quality hunting on non-fee ground is getting darn tough to come by, 1223 is a nice little perk that creates a meaningful opportunity for residents to hammer and empty the PLOTS parcels for the coveted first week (just making it easier for you) :D

Despite the snippets of words that are offensive to you, I guess we'll just have to disagree on the "fairness" of 1223.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Dan,
First I will say this has been a good discussion. I know these are hot buttons for a lot of us and it is easy to let them deteriorate, but it hasnt. I respect your opinion and think you have some good points. However, I still feel the way I do because if states keep giving these "perks" to residents, it will not stop and in time get to the point where the average person can only hunt or fish in his or her own state. And I dont want that to happen. Is the first weekend being res only going to wreck my experience? Probably not. But what happens when MN retaliates? Then ND goes one step beyond MN and it escalates out of control. The thing that disturbs me is that you seem to think that you have a "right" to easily hammer the birds. My opinion is that residents shouldn't have that right. Should they have some advantages? Sure, but should they have the birds handed to them on a golden platter at the expense of NRs? No.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,481 Posts
Dino,the season is 3 months long,we are talking about a small perk for 1 week.Have you tried to hunt some of the PLOTS acres on opening day?Non-res. can still hunt on private land.I would think a non-res. would feel this is better than res. only everywhere the first week.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,062 Posts
Geeze, Evidently "hammering" the pheasants opening weekend is all important to you, Dino. Like MANY resident hunters, I continue to hunt waterfowl on opening pheasant weekend because the competition for PLOTs lands by the NR hunter has become completely unbelievable and ridiculous. I know for a fact that many NRs plan their trips to ND based soley on the PLOTs acreages. When you're in ND this year for the opening of pheasant season, try knocking on doors to get on private land. I think you'll find that opening weekend is usually reserved for family and friends and that many residents have to rely on PLOTs ground that weekend to help have a good experience. I for one am tired of competing with NRs who feel that it is their "right" to hunt on PLOTs lands even though somebody else has beat them to the spot and will welcome 1223. By the way a quality hunt doesn't necessarily mean that you have to harvest a lot of game. As far as MN retalliating...how many examples do you need?
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top