Lottery deer gun & ML

[harvey lee]

I'm just really disappointed with the whole situation. Last time I was out and hunted family land in central NoDak, I think it was 2009, there were literally hundreds of deer on our property. HUNDREDS! And I'm not exaggerating. But perhaps that was contributing to the current problem?

We had some absolutely beautiful bucks cruising around, and it was actually a fairly decent buck to doe ratio. I really felt the genetics were there to pop some real giants. I shot a 165-inch main frame 12-point that fall, and there were several other very nice bucks working the property.

I only spent $135.00 on all the licenses and certifications required for a non-resident waterfowl hunt that year, and besides the price of the buck tag I pulled, I also took home 2 mature does that fall that only cost me $50.00 each.

Evidently a lot has changed in 5 years. Maybe I'll just take the boys back there for an upland bird hunt? Anyone know if there are any roosters still running around between Carrington and Harvey?

Sorry to hijack the thread. I'm just pretty disgusted that I can't really hunt our family land anymore.

I believe it would be a bit better if kids of landowners who were raised on the family farm could go into a special drawing where their odds were at bit better. Would not really use up that many of the available tags and then their families could hunt deer together again.

of course that would take an act from their legislature and maybe an act of God for this to happen.

Simple cure, 2-3 softer winters and the tags will rise and most all will be happy again.

I believe this all started about 10 years ago when the deer herd, at least in 2g1 was close to out of control and they gave away many licenses and a lot of extra doe tags, heck you could get 4-6 doe tags for 3-4 years if you wanted them. Then after the herd got reduced to a better number where they could survive during a hard winter hopefully, we got hit with 3 very bad winter's so the huge deer kill off and then 3 bad winters and here we are trying to get lucky to pull as tag every 2-4 years.

I knew years ago when the deer hunting was as good as it could get that this would end so one had to enjoy the good times while they lasted.

Well, here we are.

[TylerS]

Well, first time in 12 years I didn't draw a rifle tag. No biggie. I'll have a preference point for next year. Plus I can still buy an OTC archery tag. Gotta get venison one way or another!

[UMC]

Drum up support for the conservation amendment guys, it's probably the only way we'll see deer numbers anywhere near what they were 5 years ago. Black fields and oil wells don't support too many deer.

[harvey lee]

That is correct, as we lose more cover and habitat, our wildlife goes with it.

[LMITOUT]

Drum up support for the conservation amendment guys,

NO!

[UMC]

It's America, you can certainly choose to sit and do nothing as well.

[LMITOUT]

And doing nothing in this case is most definitely the right thing to do.

But, if the shortsighted and selfish want to thump their chest and pretend they're saving the world by voting for this garbage amendment, have at it. Seeing how it is originating from the east side of the state I'm hardly surprised.

[TylerS]

I dunno, LMIT. Seeing where the state is headed, I sure wouldn't mind SOME sort of habitat available for my son to hunt 12 years from now.

[harvey lee]

I am not sure what the best plan is for habitat but if we do not do something soon, there will be little to no habitat left.

No habitat, no wildlife.

[LMITOUT]

I dunno, LMIT. Seeing where the state is headed, I sure wouldn't mind SOME sort of habitat available for my son to hunt 12 years from now.

It seems you've fallen victim to the message they're attempting to propagate, i.e. chicken little syndrome, and that this is the silver bullet to everyone's deer tag woes, etc.

First off, you're making the incorrect assumption in that you will be able to hunt it. The amendment language is entirely too loose (intentionally), let alone the fact that special interest groups and national corporations with unlimited funds will make private ownership nearly impossible while gobbling up this land and sitting on it. You may be able to hunt on it next year, or five years from now, or ten years for now...but that isn't guaranteed and once it's out of the public's hands good luck getting it back.

If I were you I'd be wondering if there will be land available for your son to OWN 12 years from now.

[TylerS]

It seems you've fallen victim to the message they're attempting to propagate, i.e. chicken little syndrome, and that this is the silver bullet to everyone's deer tag woes, etc.

First off, you're making the incorrect assumption in that you will be able to hunt it. The amendment language is entirely too loose (intentionally), let alone the fact that special interest groups and national corporations with unlimited funds will make private ownership nearly impossible while gobbling up this land and sitting on it. You may be able to hunt on it next year, or five years from now, or ten years for now...but that isn't guaranteed and once it's out of the public's hands good luck getting it back.

If I were you I'd be wondering if there will be land available for your son to OWN 12 years from now.

Own?? Have you seen land prices lately? I'll never own a chunk of hunting property in North Dakota, just like I'll never own a lake cabin in Minnesota. That's not even budgetable.

I don't see out outside groups or special interest groups could "gobble up" anything given North Dakota's laws that strictly prohibit such things. Just look at how much trouble DU has gotten into trying that stuff in the past.

Heck, if we can set aside land, any land, as habitat I'm happy. Even if we can't hunt it, at least it will be producing critters. It ain't happening now, and won't with decreases in CRP, loss of native prairie and high commodity prices. What's the incentive for farmers to keep anything out of production these days??

[harvey lee]

No incentive at all Tyler. Every inch of ground is now under the plow and with the loss of CRP as you mentioned and other key habitat, it's a dim picture out there to say the least.

I am not sure what the perfect plan is, may not be one but we all know that they way it is going, it cannot last long.

I agree as far as purchasing a small piece of paradise for ones hunting, that is very unlikely for average Joe, simply cannot afford it, that avenue will only work for the wealthy and then you will still be out.

[LMITOUT]

Own?? Have you seen land prices lately? I'll never own a chunk of hunting property in North Dakota, just like I'll never own a lake cabin in Minnesota. That's not even budgetable.

[TylerS]

Hence this amendment which will allow such a thing to happen.

Seems to be a common story...people are under the impression this is going to create some sort of hunting Utopia without understanding the details and only relying on the feel-good propaganda to make their decision to support this amendment. A large sum of money and support for this amendment is coming from out of state and that should be a gigantic red flag for anyone. Proceed with caution...

I'm going to have to do more research as that's the first I've heard of it. But I'm always open to discussion. Glad to see this is staying civil.

What's your investment in North Dakota, if you don't mind me asking? You live in Minnesota, do you not?

[CANOPY SAM]

Evidently habitat loss is a big contributing factor right now with upland game, and likely other game in NoDak.

After my last post I actually contacted the ND Game and Fish Department about license costs, and other possible options. Even the CO I spoke with admitted that if we are looking for roosters on our family land in central NoDak it is unlikely we will find any.

5 years ago there was a good population of roosters out there. Since then, the majority of the existing CRP has been put back into production. There used to be literally thousands of acres of CRP in the area. Now it's almost all gone. That's unfortunate.

I don't know anything about the discussion you're having in regard to big corporations buying up all the land in the Dakotas. I do know this. The really big farmers are buying up the small family operations that come up for sale or auction. They're the only one's who can afford to.

However, I've never had any trouble getting permission to hunt their ground. In my limited experience, these big farming operations are only interested in profits from farming, and could really care less about hunters on their land. Although I'm sure their "interest" plays a large part in the actual amount of wildlife habitat available. As we all know, few species will do well in a huge monoculture.

[TylerS]

I don't know anything about the discussion you're having in regard to big corporations buying up all the land in the Dakotas. I do know this. The really big farmers are buying up the small family operations that come up for sale or auction. They're the only one's who can afford to.

However, I've never had any trouble getting permission to hunt their ground. In my limited experience, these big farming operations are only interested in profits from farming, and could really care less about hunters on their land. Although I'm sure their "interest" plays a large part in the actual amount of wildlife habitat available. As we all know, few species will do well in a huge monoculture.

I couldn't agree with you more.

[Scoot]

But you're OK with out of state corporations taking the land out of private ownership and providing it for you. If you thought land prices are bad now, go ahead and support this amendment but later you'll be wishing you didn't.

I almost never say this, but I totally agree with LMITOUT. Things are getting tougher, but this is an express ticket to worse yet!

[TylerS]

Well then I guess we'll just agree to disagree. Vote what you feel is right!

[CANOPY SAM]

Just to re-visit, and clarify my earlier post. I contacted one of the good folks at ND Game and Fish with my concerns about non-resident tag prices, and dwindling opportunities for NR hunters.

He was extremely helpful and informative.

First, he addressed my concern over high priced NR waterfowl licensing. It turns out I was correct about some increased pricing, but I was mistakenly including the cost of the NR Upland Hunting tag as well. To my surprise this was not required for a non-resident to hunt waterfowl. I was certain this was also required to hunt waterfowl as a non-resident, but we may have simply purchased these additional tags the last time we went out to our family farm? I just don't recall exactly.

The CO was also very honest and helpful about our decision in regard to purchasing the NR Upland Game license. The cost, for two of us, is about $100.00 each. The CO explained that due to the substantial loss of habitat in our area of the state, with so much CRP being put back into production, there are very few Pheasants remaining in our area. We could still choose to purchase the upland game licenses, but paying that much just to shoot Sharptails and Hungarian Partridge seems a little steep. We can hunt the same birds here in NW Minnesota, and save the extra $200.00 for duck and goose loads for my kids.

The NDG&F folks have raised the price of licenses across the board. This was necessary as, just like Minnesota, they hadn't raised any licensing costs in something like 25 years, so they did increase prices by a small percentage to account for inflation.

The significant decrease in white-tail tags is also comprehensive, including resident, and non-resident licenses, and there isn't any real "preferential" treatment of residents vs. non-residents. It's simply a reflection of a greatly reduced deer herd, and everyone is paying the price.

I'm genuinely thankful I contacted these folks. I carefully described the ages, resident and/or non-resident status, and desired hunting opportunities for each of our party, and the CO I spoke with actually took the time to spell out precisely which licenses each of us needs to purchase, outlined various options for us, and even included prices, and price comparisons for each of our options.

This was so helpful I can hardly put it to words. According to my initial calculations, we were on the hook for nearly $300.00 in licenses each, simply to hunt waterfowl in ND this fall. After the CO helped to explain and correct my math, two of us are now down to only $135.00 in NR licenses, only $45.00 for my ND resident son-in-law, and only $25.00 for my 12-year old son. And my son-in-law, and youngest son can also hunt upland game at this low cost!

So I thought it only right to publically admit my erroneous judgment, and poor interpretation of the licensing math, and give "props" to the ND Game and Fish department for cordially correcting my mistakes.

With this knowledge we are now committed to return to the family farm this fall for a long weekend of waterfowl hunting. I'm super excited about taking my three boys out to central NoDak to take part in this amazing spectacle. With the predicted numbers of ducks and geese I'm confident these boys are going to enjoy something akin to "the good old days" of waterfowling in North America!

Thanks to North Dakota Fish and Game! These folks truly do work to promote and maintain the amazing resources of North Dakota.

[KEN W]

Not sure who gave that info.This is right off the GNF HSOforum licensing page....

Residents and non-residents under 16 years old....

Certificate $ 1.00

General Game and Habitat $ 20.00

Small Game....$ 10.00

$31 total

plus anyone over 16 needs the federal duck stamp.

For non-res over 16....it depends on if you want to hunt statewide or in a specific zone.

Specific zone...

Certificate....$ 2.00

General Game and Habitat....$ 20.00

Waterfowl 14-Day (2-7day periods)...$ 100.00

Total....$122

To hunt Statewide....

Certificate...$ 2.00

General Game and Habitat....$ 20.00

Statewide Waterfowl 14-Day (2-7 day periods)...$ 150.00

Total....$172

[brittman]

Carrington to Harvey is very marginal pheasant range. If habitat is there (less now than the past 25 years) and winters are mild (need 2 - 3 successive), then that area will carry pheasants. Private land can be especially productive.

Even if your family managed the area for wildlife, that area can really get hit hard with deep snow and prolonged cold.

[brittman]

The NDG&F and MN DNR both screwed up pretty bad. The loss of CRP (lotta fawns are born there without fear of rampant predation) and successive bad winters should have been clear warning signs that the number of permits needed to be reduced. While you "can't stockpile" deer, the harvest was so high that it exceeded the compensatory targets (certain amount of deer will die anyways) and the actual base reduced.

Hunters can take too many deer. Just look at the whitetail population before the populations were protected.

[brittman]

Farming is cyclical. Twenty-five years ago farms were going under at an alarming rate. Farms were bought too high in price and costs were going up - all the while grain prices were on the floor.

This idea to set aside land from production (poorest land first). By keeping land out of production ... less grain harvested ... prices go up.

Then the 2000s hit. Grain demand is high (in part by ethanol demand) and drought across key swaths of prime land limited grain production. As the corn belt grew north and west ... wheat and other crops became less common and their prices sky rocketed too.

But now - the corn harvest is expecting to be a record ... no drought, better yielding crops, more acres planted !!! The corn farmers may lose money this year.

In 2004 the "average" cost of an acre of corn was $1.67/acre. In 2014 it about $4/acre.

A couple years of this and CRP sign ups will regain popularity.

[creepworm]

A couple years of this and CRP sign ups will regain popularity.

The amount of CRP acres are currently maxed out per the current funding level. If more CRP is what you want, contact your reps and tell them to fund CRP at a higher level. Some of the CRP that was taken out, would have remained CRP if the government did not drastically cut funding levels.

[brittman]

You are right there were more acres that were entered in applications (1.9 million) than allowed (1.7 million).

There is still 26 million acres enrolled, but if you open the attached map - you can see that while ND still leads in total CRP acres enrolled they also lead in acres lost.

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/acresmapseptoct2012.pdf