Iowa ---it's a freak show for Non-Resident deer hunters

[PEATMOSS]

Tyler, with all due respect, I don't think you speak for all the residents of North Dakota's many withering small towns, as I don't speak for all Minnesotans. Please refrain from the condescending remarks.

North Dakota could benefit tremendously from more non-resident participation in hunting and fishing. Yes, there are regions of ND that are booming, while there are far, far more small bread and butter farming communities that are near extinction.

You're talking about two different animals here. Dollars spent in a rural community have no impact what-so-ever on the state's budget surplus, or deficit. This money benifits the community, and families making a living there. A % of state license fees are what are earmarked for budget purposes.

Some of us "holier-than-thou snobs" actually enjoy spending money in small town diners, service stations, and hotels to say thanks for the great hospitality.

You live in Fargo. Fargo is not a representative community for the economic situation most of ND faces. I used to live in Grand Forks. Lived there for 4 years, and still have family land in central North Dakota. I loved being a resident of ND, and miss it greatly.

I know first hand that "rural" North Dakota enjoyed the old days, 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's when non-residents flocked to the rolling prairies to hunt waterfowl, and upland game. It's not the same place anymore since increased fees, and limited seasons were introduced. Many family farms, and small towns loved to see non-residents arrive during hunting season. The vocal minority has taken much of that away.

Two weeks does seem like plenty of time to hunt, unless you're a non-resident trying to peg the main migration times while simultaneously being forced to choose "blocks" of time when you're allowed to hunt. I'd love to run over to our family land in mid-Nov when the big push comes, but I can't because my "choices" rarely hit the main migration, and I find myself hunting ND fewer and fewer seasons cause I simply can't afford it.

There are inherant problems with exhorbatant license fees that run way beyond your limited perspective on non-resident access, and I'm sure the hotel owner you're representing with your statement above would rebuke you for turning away his potential income.

I'm not the one suggesting turf wars here. I'm more on the side of tearing them down, so please, don't misinterpret what I'm saying, thank you.

I do love the boreal forest of MN. Towering pines, endless gin clear lakes, and the changing colors of the deciduous forest in autumn. But I also love the rolling prairie, dotted with cattail sloughs, and boundless sunrises and sunsets.

That's my point. Why do we have to put up barriers that limit, or prohibit non-residents of any state from enjoying these resources? Simple answer = greed.

If more people have access, when handled with respect and humility, everyone benefits.

Perhaps one of the best posts I have read on the subject. EVER.

[InTheNorthwoods]

Tyler, with all due respect, I don't think you speak for all the residents of North Dakota's many withering small towns, as I don't speak for all Minnesotans. Please refrain from the condescending remarks.

North Dakota could benefit tremendously from more non-resident participation in hunting and fishing. Yes, there are regions of ND that are booming, while there are far, far more small bread and butter farming communities that are near extinction.

...

I don't mean to interject to deeply into your personal disagreement with Tyler, but don't you think it is a bit presumptuous to declare that he - a ND resident - shouldn't speak to the tenor of the people of ND in regards to their laws and out of state hunting practices, and at the same time, you - a MN resident - attempt to tell him what is good for the people and communities in small town ND?

For the record, and to add my perspective to the issue as a person who is now a resident of MN, former resident of ND, continue to hunt both states, and have family that farms and lives in one of those "withering small towns," I have to side with Tyler. I think that ND is doing just fine when dealing with non-residents. There is a reason non-residents like yourself (and myself) are clamoring for more opportunity (which ironically, ND allows by letting non-residents purchase more than one pheasant or waterfowl license and allows license holders to change the dates of their week long hunts for a nominal fee to hit the peak migration). ND has managed their resource so that it is not overhunted and so that the game numbers remain high.

The fact about the small towns is that they are not suffering because of a lack of non-resident hunters. I would even argue that the small towns are not lacking at all during the hunting season. The hotels are full, the bars are packed, and if the diner has remained open after the first 9 months of the year, those diner tables are full. Yes, these small communities enjoy the added dollars that come in every fall, but in reality, they don't care if it comes from someone from Fargo, Grand Forks, Bismarck, or from a non-resident. The reason small communities are getting smaller is because most people - like yourself it sounds - have decided not to stay and raise families in these small towns. Because farming practices are changing, a single farmer can work the land previously worked by 5 families, and small farmers aren't making it. Grain storage, grain hauling equipment, fuel containers, etc., have all gotten larger. Consequently, there aren't as many jobs in small communities for those people that didn't farm as less people are needed to maintain the farming industry in the area.

In summary, and to get the thread back on point, it is the States' decision as to how they choose to handle their natural resources and game. While some states charge a premium that I do not wish to pay, the fact remains that it is their choice. If we as non residents choose not to pay their prices to play, that is not the States' fault. In the end, it is your decision as an individual to determine where to live and make your residence, and it is the States' decision of how to manage their limited resources. If having more opportunity to hunt in a state other than your own is of utmost importance to an individual, nothing is stopping that individual from relocating to Iowa, Montana, North Dakota, or wherever and making that state their residence.

[TylerS]

I can't say it any better than InTheNorthwoods did, but I'll add.

North Dakota, like Iowa, has natural resources that are desired. Whereas Iowa has its big bucks, we are known for waterfowl and upland game.

Why do you come to North Dakota? Is it because we have this game? Is it because land and access is readily available (at the time being...that could change if present trends continue)? Is it because you like the open land...the almost stifling silence that can welcome a hunter in the early morning stillness?

If the answer to the aforementioned is "yes," do you honestly believe it will stay that way forever? There was a time when Minnesota, not North Dakota, was known for bountiful waterfowl. But, as populations boomed and the environment was changed, suddenly the once might flocks of Minnesota become paltry by comparison. Today, the Central flyway has shifted westward and created a path that runs smack dab through North Dakota.

This, obviously, is no secret.

So the thing to do nowadays is come to North Dakota and reap the benefits of proper management and ecological diversity. However, as the state continues to see an increase in pressure, changes are occurring.

For starters, that historical easy access for land is becoming increasingly more difficult to come by. Where it may have used to take simply driving to the nearest pond and shooting a limit of birds, not can take hours of prep and scouting to get the job done...if ever.

With hunters, comes money (as you pointed out several times). This has not gone unnoticed by the outfitters and guides who, coincidentally, are leasing up more and more land every year. Where once were a handful of outfits with a smattering of land across the state, now are multiplying almost yearly and locking up land for their use only.

This, too, can be said for hunters (resident and nonresident) buying up tracts of land and locking it up, only to use it one or two weekends a year. This wasn't a problem in years past because pressure wasn't an issue, but as hunters are seeing more and more competition, buying land for personal use is looking like a better and better idea.

I'm not saying that all this hunting pressure is on the shoulders of nonresidents, alone, as residents play a part. But the stress on the landowners and game is apparent, and was answered by regulation from the Game and Fish.

This happens in every state, for a multitude of species. South Dakota has it for pheasants. Iowa has it for deer. Montana has it for elk. And, for all I care, Minnesota can have it for fish. Whatever the case, the state DNR or G&F deemed it necessary to help alleviate the burden on the wildlife and, possibly, on landowners.

What I'm getting at, is that if you truly do appreciate what North Dakota has now, wouldn't you want to keep it this way for the longest time possible? If current trends continue, what we have now may be "the good old days" in years to come. Pay-to-play is a real reality, so where you may dislike the two-week timetable for hunting and nominal license fees now, it will look pretty darn good when you have to pay a guide hundreds of dollars for a day or weekend of shooting.

I care deeply about North Dakota, its communities and its resources. That is the reason I moved here in the first place. I believe it is one of the last places in the continental U.S. where an outdoorsman can feel like he is on a piece of land quite possibly untouched by human hands.

You say we're being greedy, that we want the resources all to ourselves. Quite the contrary, we are just managing what we have to keep it this way as long as possible. You might not see it this way now, but times are changing...

[CANOPY SAM]

Frankly, these are the best two responses I've ever received on FM.com.

INT, Your post is very well spoken and articulate, and I understand exactly what you're saying. That being said, I stated that I am not speaking for Minnesotan's as a whole. But I know from experience that much of rural ND would greatly appreciate the return of the numbers of hunters that once frequented the state. The hotels, bars, and cafe's are not what they were 20 years ago. Perhaps around Devils Lake, or Bimarck they are, but not in rural areas.

Didn't come from a farming background, but married into it, and wish I'd known it earlier in life. I appreciate all you've said, and can't debate your wisdom on the changing face of agriculture. Family farming seems to be a thing of the past. Yet, the fact remains, that there are still thousands of small, family farms hanging on in ND, and autumn used to bring lots of money to those folks. Just as it used to bring money to people in SD, MT, and Iowa.

But, the average guy, like myself, simply can't afford the extravagence of hunting, or even fishing out of state much anymore. Simple economics tracts toward people asking for more money for the same service, or resource they offered all along. Hence, I cannot return to ND every year to hunt of fish. That's inflation in a nutshell. Supply and demand.

Only problem now is, if the demand diminishes, supply remains the same, but the vendor "ups" the price to accommodate for the lost revenue due to diminished sales. We pay more for the same thing!

Tyler, again, I'm not starting a turf war. I agee with everything you've said in your last response. It is well articulated, as is INT's. The issue comes back to the original point.

What is driving the "state's" decisions to up license fees, and limit seasons? I didn't say you were being greedy, or the state of ND. I said greed is driving the "state's" decisions.

Let's face it. If you had trophy caliber animals in your backyard would you simply give them away?

On the other hand, realistically, if you bump up non-resident fees for fishing or hunting, is it really going to make a dent in the state's budget surplus or deficit?

As hunters and fishermen, we make up a pretty small portion of the general populous(sp?). If we sell 100K non-resident fishing licenses, and we bump up the cost by $30, we realize $3M in additional revenue. That may sound like a lot of money, but realistically it's chump change in terms of the money that's really changing hands.

But $3M can make a pretty big difference to small rural towns where the average house is worth $10-15K! Where the average income is less than $20K per year. And that's reality.

I only used ND as an example. And I think, and heavy on the "think", that I'm reasonably accurate in my assertion that ND would have done better to keep license fees low, and seasons generous to keep the cash flowing. They've obviously gained enormormous benefit from OIL. So this, perhaps, has skewed the true statistics.

None-the-less, pure econonics would suggest that constantly increasing cost will ultimately decrease cash flow. State's already desireing income from out-of-state would do best to make things more affordable, not less affordable.

As inflation goes, we'll all end up without places to hunt and fish, unless we own our own little piece of heaven. Let's not create turf wars to defend what really isn't "ours" in the first place.

[uptracker]

I'll tell you one thing....it keeps me out of Iowa. I hunt MN and Ontario every year I can and between the two trips (roundtrip twice including gas, food, license and lodging) I can do both on $1100 total.

If I skipped MN and went to Iowa on public land, it would increase by about $500 round trip.

Last year my MN deer hunt on public land cost me $340 round trip and it's a 9 hour ride. My Ont. hunt on public land cost me $700 roundtrip including $300 in lodging and it's a 15 hour ride.

So, it would keep people out of Minnesota if they increased everything like the original poster is talking about. I know that'd please some residents too though...same thing over here...I wouldn't want my woods full of orange if we had some nice bucks running around still. It's bad enough as it is with the 750,000 deer hunters we have and one spike per sq. mile.

[Black Bear]

As the orginator of this tread I sincerely appreciate the well thought out responses and civility. With that said---I've decided I'm going to really "open a can of worms" and tell the story of my 2010 Minnesota Bear license. You can look for it soon in another posting. Just a warning---I'm going off the deep end on this one.......

[uptracker]

Careful Black Bear!

[TylerS]

CS,

At least we are on the same page. I understand now what you are saying.

You believe that state entities raise the price of licenses specifically to make more revenue. I believe this is partly the case. In another light, it's also a sort of "cap," per-say, if increased by a large amount; that is, the government knows it will keep some people from buying licenses simply due to the expense. I would assume some state accountant gets paid to figure this stuff out.

I suppose there is a delicate balance between licenses lost versus raise in price. If numbers of license sales remain the same (which, coincidentally, North Dakota's have) than it makes sense to raise the price and get the additional revenue.

But if numbers drastically drop to below pre-raise levels, then the raise was for naught, unless the plan was actually to stem the flow of hunting pressure (kind of sounds like a conspiracy theory, but in states like Iowa and Montana where big game license fees are through the roof, it works. One thing to note, Montana is filled with ranches, guides and outfitters. Revenue directly from license sales probably is rather insignificant compared to the money these entities rake in).

When the expenses get too high, it does keep us "Average Joes" from hunting, thus leading the whole outdoors experience down the slippery slope of making hunting more of a rich man's hobby.

Therein lies my point. If we are to keep what we have (numerous game/quality game, open land, less pressure) without increasing license fees, the only logical alternatives are to either place a cap (like South Dakota does with pheasants) or enact time limits (i.e. North Dakota's waterfowl regulations).

It also comes down to supply and demand, as you said. Iowa has big bucks and knows it can charge $400 for a tag because people pay it. Though it might keep guys like you and I from heading down there, enough interest remains to keep the state from dropping license fees. That, and in order for Iowa to keep itself known as a big-buck mecca, it must regulate hunting so that pressure remains low and bucks are allowed to reach maturity.

The only problem with your argument about decreased cash flow in N.D. (which makes sense on paper) is that license sales haven't dropped. They've varied, but stayed relatively the same for the past few years. Here is a list of license sales from 1975-2005. Although it isn't current, they do show the trend. Note that, while license sales have fluctuated, the correlate more to waterfowl numbers and water levels than license fees. Note also the drastic drop in resident sales and increase in nonresident sales:

Year Res NR Total

1975 67,267 6,043 73,310

1976 63,660 8,530 72,190

1977 63,117 7,933 71,050

1978 64,081 9,044 73,125

1979 59,053 8,682 67,735

1980 55,508 8,262 63,770

1981 52,079 6,931 59,010

1982 52,565 7,615 60,180

1983 48,575 7,085 55,660

1984 45,814 7,111 52,925

1985 41,470 6,380 47,850

1986 42,048 7,507 49,555

1987 40,890 7,505 48,395

1988 26,838 4,222 31,060

1989 29,394 5,778 35,172

1990 27,529 5,522 33,051

1991 27,857 5,928 33,785

1992 22,816 8,175 30,991

1993 30,271 9,534 39,805

1994 35,329 10,316 45,645

1995 37,054 11,997 49,051

1996 39,009 13,750 52,759

1997 36,953 15,561 52,514

1998 39,513 19,191 58,704

1999 39,118 21,873 60,991

2000 35,992 25,165 61,157

2001 35,310 30,029 65,339

2002 34,138 29,992 64,130

2003 30,771 26,066 56,837

2004 28,336 24,375 52,711

2005 28,331 25,455 53,786

[TylerS]

As the orginator of this tread I sincerely appreciate the well thought out responses and civility. With that said---I've decided I'm going to really "open a can of worms" and tell the story of my 2010 Minnesota Bear license. You can look for it soon in another posting. Just a warning---I'm going off the deep end on this one.......

Oooo.....juicy! Let 'er rip!

[CANOPY SAM]

I too appreciate the open and honest candor. I especially appreciate Tyler's providing the stats. I was preparing to do so when I saw that he'd posted them. Thanks Ty.

Your noting the downtrend in sales during the 80's as correlating to the draught is very accurate. When I first married my wife, in 89', the sloughs and potholes of NoDak were all dry. There were no ducks anywhere, but the upland game were flourishing.

In 91' my father-in-law called me and said bring your gun. We'd had 4-inches of rain on our central Nodak property, and the mallards were swarming like bees. After that the water began to return to the prairie pothole region. It was like a gift from Heaven.

The sales of non-resident licenses in ND have increased despite raising the cost, and decreasing the season length. This can be attributed to several factors. 1) Argueably some of the best waterfowling on the planet, 2) Ample space to hunt without the intrusion of other hunters, 3) Tons of access, but also, 4) Pheasants.

Roosters moved across the state in waves during the 10-yr. draught. We never imagined seeing a pheasant in our area prior to the draught. There were birds 100 miles south of us, just north of the Sodak border. But with all those dry cattail sloughs they had unlimited miles of cover for roosting and nesting during the 80's. There are now hoards of pheasants as far north as Dickinson, and Devils Lake.

The water returned, and praise God, the pheasants stayed! Now a non-resident hunter can multi-species hunt in Nodak moreso than virtually any other state. IMO this is the primary reason why non-resident license sales have continued to increase.

Obviously people will continue to pay what it takes to gain access to these opportunities. Ducks, Geese, Sharptails, Roosters, Huns - all in a couple days hunt. But imagine the numbers if license fees had remained affordable to everyone.

One can still purchase non-resident waterfowl stamps, along with upland game stamps in Nodak for under $200 if I'm not mistaken. That's not entirely unreasonable. But factoring in the remaining cost of the trips it does get pricy. A person such as myself, with limited resources, and too many kids, has to balance the budget, and this too often excludes out-of-state hunting.

What's really intriquing is the precipitous drop in ND resident license sales. Just guessing, but is this because rural America is moving out of the country, and into the city, because they can't make a living on the prairie any longer?

Perhaps if the increased numbers of non-resident hunters were allowed to stay a little longer this could help ease some of the economic burden on small, rural communities across the U.S.? I don't know.

Non-resident hunting license fees have become a freakshow almost everywhere. I'd absolutely love to hunt a huge Alaskan bull moose, but that is never going to happen. Even if I had the money, I couldn't justify the expenditure. I also dream of harvesting two giant Caribou in Northern Canada, but at $5K this is likely going to stay a dream as well.

I don't want to see this happen with fishing licenses as well. The cycle will never end.

[Meat-Run]

This has been a great post to follow and so many interesting points and views it sure has opened my eyes regarding what others think and how others feel so pationate about there state and resources....

mr

[candiru]

In some ways the NR hunters put a burden on small communities by buying homes to use for hunting. They got them cheap, but nobody is in them for about 11 months a year. If the hunters did not buy them, maybe some one would be living there and patronizing the cafe, bar, grocery store, gas station........etc.....12 months out of the year instead of one. It is not all a gain by allowing more hunters in. More land purchasing would go on also, which may not be the best for the local economy.

[CANOPY SAM]

candiru. What you say is true. But often these properties sit, vacant, for years on end. There's simply nothing to bring people back to these small, rural communities. Huge corporate farms are pushing small family farms out of business. They simply can't compete.

I think, better, that at least they are sold to someone.

If I could make a living in central North Dakota I wouldn't hesitate to move out there. Best people I've met anywhere in the world.

I know in our area of Nodak, there have been numerous duck hunting camps that have sprung up out of simple shacks on the prairie, and some in fairly nice houses in town. Interestingly, most have died out, and are standing empty again. I often think it's due to the short limit on our non-resident season.

It's really frustrating to try and pick blocks of time that correlate with the big migrational movements. For years it's always come thru the week before I've gotten there, and then things freeze up, or it happens the week after I leave.

[TylerS]

It's really frustrating to try and pick blocks of time that correlate with the big migrational movements. For years it's always come thru the week before I've gotten there, and then things freeze up, or it happens the week after I leave.

That's true...but that's true for everyone, even residents. If I get lucky and I get some news that migrators are on the push...and I don't have anything else to do, and everything falls in place...then sometimes I can get on those birds. But most often it's a one-shot deal and they're here today, gone tomorrow. Kind of the luck of the draw.

[NIBOWMAN]

I would like to say I am from Iowa, and I do not agree with the outragous fees they charge out of state hunters for the chance to deer hunt here. The legislators here have figured out that we have something here (big bucks) that others will pay dearly for so they have cut back on the nonresident liscence quotas and continually raised the fees. In the end the DNR does not net any more money, and we have gained a huntable number of trophy animals. I do not intend to brag, but I do not even look seriously at a buck under 140. I sincerly wish all hunters had that luxury. In southern Iowa whole farms have been bought up by groups from out of state for twice the cost of standard farm land just so the out of state hunters can hunt every year or two when they get prefference points. We are seeing some of this in our area also, and it is making aquiring and keeping land to hunt more and more difficult.

I am also a fisherman, and to tell you the truth Minnesota has a vast resource which could help the budget issues without harming the tourist business. I know I would be willing to spend and extra $40-$50 for a fishing liscence for the family when we come to your lakes to fish. It is the resort owners charging $1200 for a two bedroom cabin that hurts the tourist trade. I also do not think the the out of staters who own the houses on the lakes would mind either, what would they do, sell their houses? And by the way I hate bullheads, and I rarely keep more fish than I need to have one good meal with the family.

Here in northern Iowa we have alot of Minn, and Wisc. pheasant hunters come in to our area to enjoy our game. As a business owner in a small town I do appreciate the additional business for all merchants and shop keepers. I would like to ask that those who do come would respect the landowner and ask permission before letting the dogs out.

[NWBuck]

Being another Iowan who frequents this site, I agree that what we charge NR's to deer hunt is stupid high...but don't look for a decrease anytime soon. Supply and demand...for every person who won't pay the fee, there are 2 who will. The Iowa DNR does an excellent job of managing our herd, and that's at least part of the reason we have what we do. Get the gun season out of your rut and Minnesota would have just as many trophy bucks as Iowa...probably more.

Minnesota could increase their fishing license fee to NR's and people would pay it. I've fished local Iowa lakes, SD lakes and MN lakes, and it's tough to beat the Missouri River...especially Lake Oahe, and we don't have to throw the 18 and 19 inchers back. That being said, I've not fished a body of water that I like as much as Rainy. Charge me $100 and I wouldn't bat an eye. Charge me $300 and I'm probably staying local or headed to South Dakota...just my 2 cents.

[Matt Breuer]

Increasing the NR fee's would make a lot of people shy away, trust me, I talk to several NR anglers and families a week. Some of my clients from 10 years ago who used to stay in big fancy lodges now camp in tents, and book half-days instead of 2 full days. I have people calling me from ND trying to get me to knock my fee's down by $50, and then they'll book. If they are cutting me by $50, you think they're going to pay an extra $50 per family member for a license?

As for the Devil's Lake reference from earlier... comparing the 1 walleye factory in ND to the thousands in MN is insane. How far do you have to drive to catch a limit of walleyes? I can be on 3 lakes that readily put out limits with no slots in 5 minutes. People from ND don't flock here because of family ties, they flock her to see trees turning, lakes mottling maps, clear waters, clean air, and fish... endless amounts of fish. Just ask anyone in my department here in Bemidji. Out of the 9 of us, 6 are either from Grand Forks or they still live there!

Tyler, you said this, "Is it because you like the open land...the almost stifling silence that can welcome a hunter in the early morning stillness?" It's obvious that you're reaching to defend ND there... even with how elegant that was, I didn't forget that it's ND. When I lived in ND the only silence I ever heard was when I was in a tunnel trying to get away from that blasted wind...

I would probably go to ND to hunt if it were cheaper. I'd spend dough in every little eatery and shop around (my wife and kids would anyway). I'd maybe even hunt sharpies and huns there, if I could figure out how the season worked. It's just too dang spendy for such a short trip...

[slabchaser]

I agree with NW Buck. We need to get the firearms season out of the rut. I lived in Iowa for two year and I loved how they ran there seasons. The deer season had an early and late muzzy season, and a gun season in dec. Also there waterfowl season is ran well also. Opens up for a weekend and then closes until the next sat. MN needs to take some notes and change something. Add an antler restrictions and more lottery areas.

[TylerS]

As for the Devil's Lake reference from earlier... comparing the 1 walleye factory in ND to the thousands in MN is insane. How far do you have to drive to catch a limit of walleyes? I can be on 3 lakes that readily put out limits with no slots in 5 minutes. People from ND don't flock here because of family ties, they flock her to see trees turning, lakes mottling maps, clear waters, clean air, and fish... endless amounts of fish. Just ask anyone in my department here in Bemidji. Out of the 9 of us, 6 are either from Grand Forks or they still live there!