Some general comments. I grew up in North Dakota, have family there and have hunted in that state for 40 years running... North Dakota did not put a cap on nonresident waterfowlers because of the money it brings the state. Of course North Dakotan residents spend money to hunt ducks and geese ... nonresident money is "new" money to the small town hotels, cafes, and gas stations. It was heavily debated say 10 - 15 years ago. The legislature had its chance several sessions in a row (ND meets every other year), but failed to cap. I have heard it said that the nonresident license fees in-part pay for the large volume of PLOT land in ND. Someone else can confirm or deny this ... North Dakota sells about 23K nonresident waterfowl licenses and a similar number of pheasant licenses. I have never seen data on how many people purchase just one vs. both. North Dakota peaked near 30K nonresident waterfowl licenses awhile back ... but really has leveled off at the 23K-25K number. So if you say 50K licenses (pheas and waterfowl combined) at $100 each (that is definitely the low side est) ... that is $5million to NDG&F. Long time ago, North Dakota had only 3 - 5K nonresident waterfowlers and they were handed harvest tags that dramatically limited harvest of birds. Before the severe drought of the 80s and early 90s there were about 75K resident North Dakotans that hunted waterfowl ... there was real pressure on the weekends back then too ... South Dakota can talk big, look big by imposing a strict limit on nonresident waterfowlers, BUT SODAK also has 80,000 nonresident pheasant hunters. SDG&F and the small towns simply do not need to have the state sell more licenses (albeit that number was raised slightly this year). The problem this year arose largely because ducks and geese did not migrate through the Dakotas in a "normal" pattern in October. Lack of birds force everyone to go mobile and/or concentrated on what was around ... not a good situation. One year event or trend to continue ... TBD ???