North Dakota Fishing and Hunting Forum banner

What Tony Dean Thinks Of ND & MN Hunters

26204 Views 102 Replies 38 Participants Last post by  Qwack
Here's a couple of excerpts from an article written recently by Mr. Dean...

"North Dakota duck hunters think the most serious problem is how to keep Minnesotans out while Minnesotans think it's figuring a way to draw a North Dakota license. But alas, hunters from both states think first of themselves, not ducks."

and another;

"In North Dakota, a vocal group of hunters think our hunting problems are all tied directly to Minnesota and Wisconsin hunters. Thus they have mobilized and as we go to print, seem to have the state legislature ready to tie nonresident numbers to a system the N.D. Game and Fish Department developed, and ought to be ashamed of."

The article appeared in the MN Outdoor News, and is about the current state of wetland protection...or lack there of. Mr. Dean repeatedly rips on duck hunters nation wide (but especially those hailing from ND and MN) for their supposed lack of concern over the Supreme Court's 2001 interpretation that resulted in the delisting of protection for isolated wetlands under the Clean Water Act. Little is said about SD hunters however in the article, apparently they must be a 'driving force' behind the effort to restore protection. :roll:

...hmm, kind of ironic that the Clean Water Authority Restoration Act of 2003 that was recently introduced in the House Of Representatives, was done so by a Minnesotan; Congressman Jim Oberstar.

Has anyone seen Tony Dean rip hunters from the Dakota's like this in any Dakota Outdoor Publication? It seems to me that it's pretty convenient for him to be saying this in a MN publication where most of the audience is essentially going to agree with him. Yet, I haven't heard of him being so scrutinizing in a Dakota publication. However, I very well could be wrong on that so if anyone has read something similar to what I posted by Tony Dean in a Dakota publication please inform me of it.

He is however right on one thing (even if he is extremely arrogant in making his point), getting permanent protection for isolated wetlands is a must. If you haven't done so already, please write or email your reps in support of Clean Water Authority Restoration Act of 2003.
See less See more
1 - 20 of 103 Posts
Matt, I was not "ripping" North Dakota hunters. You have taken me out of context. What I did imply was that saving wetlands is a lot more important than restricting access.

Arrogant? Go ahead and think so, at least I do appreciate the fact you agree that saving our wetlands is important.

Tony Dean
Would be nice to see the entire article reprinted here, with permission. As to the wetlands issues. There are going to be LARGE areas of seasonal wetlands that go under the plow this year if we don't get rain this Spring. If we end up with 30,000 or more NR waterfowlers this year, there will be overcrowding in MOST areas like we've never seen before.
As per your request, here is the entire article I wrote for Minnesota Outdoor News. I believe that reading it in its entirety, most will agree that the main thrust of the piece was to call attention to the problems facing wetlands...and the complicity of the present administration in allowing and even encouraging the wetland drainage. Read it all and I think it's safe to say I generall ripped my fellow duck hunters, not just North Dakotans, but southerners, Minnesotans, Iowans and yes, South Dakotans.

Truth is, few of them have stepped up to the plate to tackle this most critical issue of all.

Tony Dean

No Duck Season Next Fall
By Tony Dean

Bob Marshall wrote a great piece in the New Orleans Times Picayune about ducks and duck hunters, noting that most southern duck hunters were complaining this past season was one of their worst. And then he talked to Ron Reynolds, one of the brightest minds in waterfowl management. Reynolds, a Bismarck, ND waterfowl biologist employed by the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), told Marshall that closed duck seasons might be ahead.

Reynolds bemoaned the fact that duck hunters probably don't appreciate how serious the situation is. No kidding. North Dakota duck hunters think the most serious problem is how to keep Minnesotans out while Minnesotans think it's figuring a way to draw a North Dakota license. But alas, hunters from both states think first of themselves, not ducks.

Reynolds thinks first about ducks.

And, he says, most of the serious problems that might lead to closed duck seasons have taken place within the past year. It began with the US Supreme Court stripping federal protection from the most important duck breeding habitat on the continent, the prairie potholes in the Dakotas, eastern Montana and what remains in western Minnesota.

The tragedy is, the Bush administration could have done something about it…and didn't. In fact, they took a bad situation for ducks…and made it worse.

Did you get that duck hunters? The President most of you voted for could have done a lot to secure a future for ducks…and didn't. In fact, he weighed in on the wrong side.

As of today, all that stands between wetlands that remain and drainage is Swampbuster, a Farm Bill provision that denies payments --- some call them subsidies --- to farmers who drain their wetlands. The truth is, because those Farm Bill payments are so important these days, Swampbuster has saved a lot of wetlands.

But in spite of Swampbuster, drainage is taking place in a big way and no one seems to complain. Farmers who drain aren't worried because they believe they have little to fear from the Corps or EPA and certainly not the Natural Resource Conservation Service. The point is, none of these agencies is currently enforcing Swampbuster or, unless someone tells me otherwise, keeping track of those who are draining at the risk of the loss of their Farm Bill payments.

Reynolds told Marshall that if there were any break in the protection that the Swambuster provision provides, we could easily lose 50 percent of our wetlands, which would not mean slow seasons.

It would mean NO seasons.

The only significant thing Reynolds missed in the good duck hunting equation is grass on the landscape. Yeah, CRP has been good, but in South Dakota, farm bill provisions that make it more profitable to plow than plant grass have surpassed the CRP gains. In the top ten duck production counties, the net loss of grass due to plowing prairie has exceeded that which has been gained by CRP.

Puddle ducks nest in grass. Without it, water alone will do little for puddlers.

Prior to January 2001, wetlands were protected by the Clean Water Act. It offered protection to wetlands that are easiest to drain, the small, isolated temporary ponds that are critical to most duck species. These are the same wetlands farmers often refer to as "nuisance" wetlands and they're important is that because they are very shallow and most are located in low areas of fields. When the sun hits them, they warm quickly and promote a rapid hatch of invertebrates, the major food source for ducks in the spring. Wetlands of this type have all but disappeared in western and southern Minnesota and all of Iowa, which explains why both states host so few breeding ducks.

About 80 percent of all wetlands in the Dakotas are less than an acre in size, and because they are not connected to each other or any navigable waterway, the Supreme Court decision ruled they lost their protection. And Reynolds says these tiny wetlands are responsible for about 70 percent of pothole duck production.

But most duck experts are plainly worried about the fate of these small, isolated wetlands. They'll be subject to drainage following the SWANCC decision by the conservative majority of the US Supreme Court --- the same wetlands the compassionately conservative Bush administration has decided not to protect.

But this is not the first time conservatives have attempted to facilitate the drainage of these important wet spots. No one ever accused Sen. Bob Dole of being a liberal and a few years back, he introduced legislation that failed, thankfully. It would have eliminated these small wetlands from Swampbuster protection. Dole should not have failed because Matt Connolly, then the Executive Director of Ducks Unlimited, gave him the cover he needed by referring to them as "bathtubs" and that the duck populations wouldn't come crashing down if they were eliminated. That statement became one more reason serious duck biologists do not seem to be as enamored of the self-proclaimed world leader in wetland conservation as they once were.

In Howell Raines delightful book, "Fly Fishing Your Way Through the Mid-Life Crisis," he quotes his friend, the late Dick Blalock, a liberal Washington fly fishing guru regarding the difference between the two political parties.

"The trouble with Republicans," said Blalock, "is that they'll trample over human rights to protect property rights. The good thing about Democrats is they'll trample over property rights to protect human rights."

Obviously, the truth lies somewhere in between.

But aside from those hunters who have embraced George Dubbya because he pledged to let us keep our guns, others have been wondering. After all, this same President appointed Gale Norton, a James Watt protégé. And most recently, following his habit of appointing people to regulate industries they came from, appointed Bruce Knight to head a key federal agency. Knight spent his pre-Bush days lobbying for the National Corn Growers Association, whose South Dakota affiliate lobbied hard to get the Natural Resources Conservation Service to lower the wetland delineation standards in Knight's native state. The effort ultimately failed because conservation groups and Indian tribes partnered up and beat them bloody, but guess which agency Knight now heads. You got it. He's in charge of the NRCS, and upon receiving the appointment, called himself a Teddy Roosevelt Republican.


I'm not implying all corngrowers want to drain what wetlands remain. Some do, of course, but most Dakota farmers are decent conservationists and enjoy seeing wildlife around their places, even if some species occasionally are responsible for depredation. No, it's the leaders of these groups who cause the problems.

Almost from the day the NRCS State Conservationist (an oxymoron in some cases) announced his plans, some landowners began laying drain tile. Know how that works? A machine digs a narrow trench into which is inserted plastic pipe that is perforated on the top. It's covered and from that point on, there are no wet low spots in that field.

No more wetlands.

No more ducks.


And duck hunters seem oblivious to this connection.

In the south, they drink toasts to Dubbya because he's defending our gun rights and showing Saddam where the bear does his business. And if there's a slow season again next year, the southern guys will blame those Yankees who are shortstopping the birds.

But they are no worse than some of us in the north.

In North Dakota, a vocal group of hunters think our duck hunting problems are all tied directly to Minnesota and Wisconsin hunters. Thus they have mobilized and as we go to print, seem to have the state legislature ready to tie non-resident numbers to a system the ND Game and Fish Department developed, and ought to be ashamed of. It lowers the number of non-resident hunters during dry periods with low duck numbers.

You need legislation to do that?

However that legislation makes no reference to the policies to be followed in years of no season.

In South Dakota, non-residents are also an issue and sportsmen there took time to fight a measure that would have allowed a additional 500 non-resident waterfowl licenses in northeastern South Dakota, an area where duck hunters are conspicuous --- by their nearly complete absence.

What you do not hear in the Dakotas, Minnesota or anywhere for that matter, is the outcry from duck hunters over what will likely be happening to our wetlands and in short order, our ducks. It might be that they aren't aware of it. Lord knows they can't depend on the outdoor press to bring it to them. The Big Three (Field & Stream, Outdoor Life and Sports Afield) steer clear of controversy. They'd rather cuddle up to lawmakers who all too often use membership in the Congressional Sportsman's Caucus as a means of suggesting to hunters back home that we're here watching out for you. Truth is, you have to depend on a few outdoor communicators like Marshall, Dennis Anderson and others, who unfortunately see their influence dwindle at the outer edge of their newspaper circulation area.

When the President entered the House floor to deliver his State of the Union, he began by hugging Congressman Bill Janklow, the former SD Governor. Never mind the fact that Janklow has been unable to parlay that close friendship with the President into getting drought relief for Dakota farmers and ranchers or a fair break in Missouri River water management. What I really fear is that Janklow and Bush are on the same wetland page.

After all, when the NRCS State Conservationist made his anti-wetland moves, we did not hear from the Game, Fish & Parks Department about what it could do to ducks and a whole host of other things.

That's because they were gagged --- by Bill Janklow.

And that reminds me of the courage of guys like Ron Reynolds, who though he works for George Bush's US Fish & Wildlife Service, at least points out to duck hunters what will happen if these bizarre wetland shenanigans do become American policy.

Janklow was convinced that the wetland issue was one of fairness; that South Dakota farmers should be able to drain just like their Minnesota counterparts did. This from a guy I once described as the smartest man to ever sit in the Governor's chair in South Dakota. The man who convinced him was state legislator Larry Diedrich, another pretty conservative face with a zeal for higher office and a desire to drain every wet spot.

If people like Bush, Janklow, Knight and Diedrich are successful, you won't see little pockets of open water in farm fields after a snow melt. You won't see any ducks either. And to those who say, well, you're just picking on conservatives, please name the "liberals" who are consistently voting in favor of drainage or of policies that aid and abet drainage.

What sad is that too many duck hunters do not worry about the future.

Whether they hail from the "anti-non-resident" Mecca of the Dakotas or belong to the ranks of the "hate the shortstopping Yankees" of the southern states, they have one thing in common. They worry about themselves and today. They are much like the Minnesota and Iowa duck hunters of a few years back. Why worry about draining these little puddles, I imagine they could have said, for as long as we have Canada and the Dakotas, we'll have plenty of ducks.

Over the past decade, Canadian duck production has become an oxymoron and if we allow the drainage of the Dakotas, well, hopefully you get the picture.

Ron Reynolds said his agency (USFWS) recently analyzed the consequences of congressional failure to bring back wetland protection under the Clean Water Act and if the Swampbuster program were to end. He said we'd be looking at about a 50 percent loss of duck production.

And Swampbuster has just 5 years left.

After that, maybe a year or two of duck hunting will remain.

See less See more
You beleive ND should not have any restriction on the number of non res waterfowl hunters.Since you make a big chunck of money from Devils lake chamber of com. (30 K) approx. may have something to do with your point of veiw.Then you should also be infavor of and go on record of being against any caps in SD for waterfowl hunting.Take away the lottery and the 6000 cap.3,800 ten straight day licenses at $105,2,000 three day licenses at $75,and 200 alseason licenses for five SW counties. Then ND might not have 30,000 plus NRs. The HPC was a great compromise that would have been way more fair that SD small fixed cap.Even in a drought ND would have adjusted but still would have allowed more NRs then SD fixed cap.of 3,800 ten day licenses.
Kevin Hayer
Tony what is it yes or no should SD have a cap????

You are wrong, significantly on the high side regarding what Devils Lake, ND spends with our company

And to Kevin and Dean, I have always been opposed to the caps in South Dakota. South Dakota's cap is the reason you are getting the bulk of the non-resident hunters.

All of that aside, I suspect both of you missed the main point of the article. It was about something a lot more significant than caps for either Dakota. It was about losing wetlands and grass and if either happens, the caps are a moot point. It was about the current administration's lack of concern for the value of wetlands. And you are both reacting the way I said most duck hunters react...with concern for only YOUR hunting and not enough for the overall well-being of the waterfowl resource.

No I did not miss it. So what do you propose we do about it?
How about generating the same kind of effort you fellows put together on the non-resident issue?

Letters, lots of them, to ND's congressional delegation, the President, Governor. Letters to the editor. The same kind of pressure. And remember, people other than duck hunters care about wetlands, so how about teaming up with them? That helps win more to our cause. How about Mayors whose community drinking water comes from rivers that currently carry runoff from drained wetlands? How about, instead of bashing Scheel's, like some have done on this forum, you recruit their help. They gain when people hunt...and fish.

A few years back, the ND Wildlife Society commissioned a poll and found an overwhelming number of North Dakota's supported wetlands and believed in retaining them. Bring that to the attention of the public.

And fight to eliminate the myth that draining wetlands helps agriculture. It doesn't. In the long haul, it hurts it.

Tony - I actually found the Zenter article on a arkansas website. ... eadid=1349 I don't read yours alot because like FB (even more so) it is too one sided & too controlled

In North Dakota, a vocal group of hunters think our duck hunting problems are all tied directly to Minnesota and Wisconsin hunters. Thus they have mobilized and as we go to print, seem to have the state legislature ready to tie non-resident numbers to a system the ND Game and Fish Department developed, and ought to be ashamed of. It lowers the number of non-resident hunters during dry periods with low duck numbers.

You need legislation to do that?
Yes - I think we do - sure after a few bad years, they will slowly stop coming - But just like all the concerns in the Zentnar article - They will come, (even in down times) just because ND is so much better than where they come from.

All the more reason to protect the USA side of the Prairie Pot Hole region. Which in recent years has become the prime Habitat to raise ducks (because of the moisture we have received) Did you spend anytime in Nelson County & NE of Devils lake last Spring Summer Fall - I mean from Lakota to the Canada Border. The only real prime wetlands last year (during those important (Spring & summer) months. Canada was in terrible shape during the critical months.

& your distracting from this, To make your Congressional campaign points - hurt 2048 - just for a few lousy Bucks to the commercial sides in all this. (which includes you) So I am disappointed in your narrow view & lack of understanding & trust in so many Good ND people.
See less See more
"Did you spend anytime in Nelson County & NE of Devils lake last Spring Summer Fall - I mean from Lakota to the Canada Border. "

Well of corse he did Fetch But he was with Blanchfeild so something tells me access was not a problem! One thing you leave out Tony is how to do all this without pissing off every farmer in the state. By the way I love the plug for Scheels way to work that one in. Say hi to Dashhole for me.
Keith: Why do you find it necessary to insult or question the integrity of anyone who disagrees with you? When we first met, you acted a lot more reasonable and friendly. When you stopped by and introduced yourself at the Grand Forks show, you walked right out and didn't bother to visit. If you had something to do, fine. But as this non-resident issue has progressed, my sense is, your views and comments become more and more strident.

Where did the Zentner post originate? Full Force Five, who posted it on the ARkanasa website says he took it off another. I don't know of another that had it other than mine. I think Dave would say that's true. Even so, it represents the thoughts of one of America's great conservationists and certainly takes in a lot more ground than one issue.

You focus on one statement from my story as though it's the only thing I wrote. You accuse me of narrow views when what I have advocated from the get-go is the conservation of wetlands and grass. That is far more than a one-area or one-state view.

I traveled all of the area you described, and a lot more. Not all of Canada was in bad shape. In fact, southwestern Manitoba was wet and will be wetter this year. Yet, even with water, it doesn't raise the ducks the Devils Lake basin does, primarily because there's little or no grass in Canada. There's plenty of CRP in the basin.

Congressional campaign points? Get serious. Why would I make them on a ND website? Another insult?

Yes, I do control things on my website. I don't post anything without knowing who's writing it. I will allow the use of the non-de-plume, and I'm not even sure that's a good idea. There's something about having to put your name on things that keeps things a bit more honest. I don't believe in hiding under those CB radio-type names. And if that means you don't visit mine or Fishing Buddy, fine. Tell me which is the more responsible approach.

And Mr. Nelson, I haven't hunted with Kyle Blanchfield for at least four years. If and when I do again, I won't apologize for it. There was no attempt to sneak in a plug for Scheel's, they no longer advertise with us.
Just the same, I don't tell others to boycott them as I've seen on these pages. And as for teeing off farmers, based on what I see and hear, you fellows have done just fine.

Finally, in the few times I've posted here, I put up with personal slams and insults. Fellas, I don't need this.
See less See more
All we are doing is showing the real you not the one sided person you show on your site. So how many times have you hunted in ND without someone with a guiding license helping you? Just a qustion.
I for one wholeheartedly agree with the things Tony has written. I guess if I would criticize anything I would say that the issues are seperate from each other, but when one takes the energy for the fight out of the other, there is a problem. I dont think many people realize the volume of grass going back to cropland this year, and last. TIling activities are rapidly changing the defintion of "maintenance" to existing drainage systems. Add this to a slow change in defintitions of wetlands, in practice if not definition, and things are changing. Another that is going to be much larger than people realize now is a major change in CRP allowing managed haying and grazing. Folks, I grew up on a farm and did it for 8 years as a life. Managed haying and grazing is going to be huge. Say your thanks to Ms. Veneman when that favorite tract of CRP is 100% hayed this fall. :puke: We ND's should be fighting for our hunting future, yet at the same time we need to embrace movements to preserve what we have. Mr. Dean does have a point that maybe we have the primary issue mixed up..... maybe they should at least engage 1/2 our time. My.02$. Tom
See less See more
Nelson, Fetch

I know you guys have problems with some of Tonys opinions on nonresidents, but guys lets take a good look at the even biger picture. Pot shooting Tony Dean is just plain wrong. Mr. Dean is one of the only champions of waterfowl we have left in this country. Mr. Dean has stuck his neck out and defended habitat, and often lost busines, friends, and support from it. He has a valid point about working to change the new EPAs rules. I for one would like to change our energy on this site to correcting this wrong. Pasting Mr. Dean is not going to get this site, or our readers anywhere. Lets use our brains and not our emotions on this subject. Habitat and wetland protection must remain in this country, with out it we won't have any ducks to enjoy. CRP is here for another 10 years, but this wont save us if we have wide spread loss of small temp. wetlands. We should be thankful for Mr. Deans hard work. A little respect has been more than earned.
Insults, insults, and insults will never work. Mr. Fetch said it best recently on another closed post: We wouldn't need this site if everyone agreed. I sure hope you all settle down and use your head instead of ????????
IMO - he was wrong about his stance on 2048 as he was on his stance about spring SOB hunting

I did not know or care about weather the article came from his site

Overall the article from Mr Zentar was very good

Just cause Tony is famous in our region is no reason to think all he says is gospel

If that is attacking his intergrity ??? I guess he needs a few.

I support his work in the "supporting Habitat" but to always use it to think we should support him is weak - when he did not support us in 2048 & he always confuses habitat with our real issues :roll: :******:

Especially when it comes to the likes of someone like Spirit water Steve.

Hey Tony do you support cootkiller too ???

He seems in the pocket of the commercial sides to ???

As for Mr Deans criticism of handles on these sites ??? Don't like that Don't participate - Like I choose to do on yours - & the fact I could not stay & visit after his show (I had my son with & Tony had lots of people waiting to talk to him - I had to get my son home, to go out with his friends - Not stay & talk to a bunch of old men, about things - Just the fact he stayed & listened to Tony's talk was enough for him. But I felt Mr Deans knowledge on anything Outdoors related was worth him staying & hearing him - In his Opinion (my son's) was not worth the time - & I agree because - it was a story & theme I'd heard several times before. :roll:

I wonder who's integrity is being questioned ??? & if you want to go there ??? I'm game just don't use the - " hurting my means of making a living" later when I RIP apart some of your views - I strongly disagree with - OK ??? Because I used to respect you & most of your opinions - But if you are going to act like this - Then I'm of the opinion your ideas are OLD & not worth the time, I put out to hear them. :******: I feel I have given you the benefit of the doubt several times.
See less See more
Well I'm with Fetch on this one. These are from his site and sum up his last two years worth of ND hunting.

"The first day was our slowest. My young friend, Jason Mitchell, who guides out of Woodland Resort, pointed me in a specific direction, north of Devils Lake."

"Bruce Peterson, who owns Lighthouse Pointe Resort and the Trails at Oahe, joined me."

"And next week, we'll head north to Devils Lake to hunt mallards in the stubble with Randy Frost."

And I'm not even going to go into the fishing!!!

"Today, we fished with Jeff Dosch and his crew; Wade and Tim of Dosch Guide Service. We fished East Lake along Highway 20 south of Devils Lake."
If I'm n ot mistaken, Mr. Dean supported the passage of South dakota's NO TRESPASS law. For me, that says it all about Mr. Dean's support for the average sportsman.
The problem with websites is the person reading them sometimes thinks what they see is what everyone believes. Of course, that's not the case.

Fetch gets carried away with stridency. When he's not agitated, he writes with clarity. Too bad. I suspect we'd agree on most things but he's so hung up on non-resident issues that he can't even admit habitat is far more important, which is what I've maintaned all along. As a moderator, he owes it to the site to be...somewhat more moderate. And I hope he can. Fetch can't even give me a compliment without a slam. While he and (he says) his son, thought my seminar presentation was the same old stuff, he knows as well as I do that it wasn't. Not bragging here, but I'm one of the few that isn't hyping products and tells fishing the way it is. And all of those "old" people that were around me to talk to me about those "old" ideas must have thought so too. That happens everywhere I speak; Grand Forks, Fargo, Minneapolis, Sioux Falls, Chicago or Milwaukee. Keith Liebeg, you're too good a person, too intellectual, to resort to cheap shots. Don't do it. It doesn't hurt me as much as it does you.

tb? As you know, I did support the trespass law in South Dakota back in the 1970s, along with the SD Game, Fish & Parks Department. You should tell the rest of the story because I have, several times, in Dakota Country magazine. I believed some of the ag groups who said it would improve relations between landowners and sportsmen. It didn't and if I could reverse any stand I've ever taken, that would be it. That trespass law did a lot to facilitate commercial hunting. Castigate me? Of course you will because it serves your purpose. But I admit I have, in print, several times in the past. I was wrong. But if you take things out of context, at least tell the rest of the story, not just the part that serves you.

Dean Nelson, as I wrote you in a private email, you make a mistake if you try to attack me. I'm a better communicator than you are. What you have done is take A LOT of statements out of context. I am in the television business and I will not apologize for working with guides. TV costs a lot of money, more than you'll realize, probably a lot more than your tuition. With limited time in North Dakota, because of non-resident license requirements and expenses, I have only a few days to produce a product. Don't criticize another until you've walked in his boots. And you are many years and lots of experience short of fitting in mine.

And if you think I do not know my way around the outdoors (as you and fellow student, Matt Jones, who started this thread have implied), I will only say this. I'm 62 years old, grew up on a North Dakota farm, and have hunted in more states under more conditions, for more species, with more outstanding and knowledgable hunters in just the past 10 years, than you as a student, have in a lifetime. I know how to scout, arrange and deploy decoys, call, and shoot as well as any of you. No boasting, just fact. And I suspect I have hunted as many days in North Dakota over the past 50 years as any of you, and certainly that includes Keith. In addition to that, I know my way around all types of fishing tackle, lakes, rivers, reservoirs, and I suspect of all TV and radio hosts, know at least as much about the conservation field.

Hey, I even know who BIOMAN is. He's Ron Stromstead, the former Wildlife Divison Director at the Game and Fish Department, and if I follow the reasoning I've seen on some of the threats on this website, he's a turncoat. He took more money to move to California...a lot more money. Does that make him evil? I think not. It says to me, he has a family to provide for and has the ability and stature to command more money.

Another who has contributed to this thread and isn't on my wave length on this specific issue (non-residents) is Ron Reynolds, and there are few people in wildlife management I have more respect for then Ron.

Both Ron Stromstead and Ron Reynolds make their living off the resource. Does that make them evil? I think not.

So far, there has been little meaningful debate; only attacks, cheap shots, etc. My thanks to tsodak, ND Gander and ND Economics for at least recognizing that my concerns were valid. And with that, I'm out of here.

Tony Dean
See less See more
1 - 20 of 103 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.