No public land hunting 1st week in ND

[Shorelunch]

I was reading an article in Outdoors Weekly that was saying that out-of-state hunters in ND can't hunt on public land the first week of the season that opens October 11. Is this correct? If so, this really sucks.

[Shorelunch]

Didn't mention that I'm referring to pheasant hunting.

[bigdog]

Unfortunately this is correct. I called ND Game and Fish this morning. Non-residents cannot hunt PLOTS or WMA's the first week of pheasant season (Oct. 11-17th). If ND opens Duck in September, non-residents are also not able to hunt the first week. If Duck opens in Oct, non-residents can hunt immediately.

[Shorelunch]

I just talked to my dad who lives in ND and there's many ND residents ticked off about this new law. This STUPID law causes a lot of ND businesses to lose money and screws up a lot of peoples' plans.

Maybe MN should close the first week of the walleye opener to non-residents . . .

I imagine there's not much non-residents can do except to contact our US legislator or maybe Pheasants Forever/DU?

[Shorelunch]

Oh, ND public land opens to non-residents on the 17th (Friday) - yippie.

[bigdog]

I think it opens on 18th. Game and fish said closed through the 17th, so open Saturday the 18th.

One other note, apparently this closure is for ALL types of hunting, including waterfowl, on Game and Fish lands.

Here is a clip from the ND Game and Fish:
Fall 2003 Waterfowl Details
(Ducks, Geese, Coots, Mergansers, Tundra Swans) Nonresident Waterfowl Licensing Details

Note: Nonresidents may not hunt on lands owned or leased by the North Dakota Game and Fish Department including Private Lands Open To Sportsmen (PLOTS) for the first week of pheasant season (October 11-17).

[This message has been edited by bigdog (edited 08-13-2003).]

[Dano2]

You also have many that say the NR dollars aren't didly squat, which I dont agree.
Their big battle now is the hunting on private land issue, if its not posted its O.K. to hunt, some land owners are ticked off and feel they shouldn't have to post their land. Haven't read the nodak forum in awhile, so not sure the poutcome on that one.
then ofcourse their biggest dam of all time is mostley the guides and Outfitters taking over the state, HEH!
All i know is I'm not going back, so they beat me i guess you can say, but its not worth listening to all the bitchen, NR's this, Nr's that.

[ATM]

After, talking with several land owners in ND whos land I hunt, all have said this new law is not what they want, they said that this bill came about because the hunters in cities such as fargo wanted it and since that is where the majority of the voters are from the bill came about. The land owners whos land I hunt on say this is going to hurt there community because less minnesotans are going to put money into there small communities. Most of them i know will not even allow a fargo hunter on there land because they come down shoot abunch of birds and drive home contributing nothing that helps there community thrive. adam

[Shorelunch]

Not to pick bones with ya bigdog, but here's a quote from the (many) articles I've found . . . "On Oct. 17, those lands are open to both resident and nonresident hunters." So at least we can start on Friday . . .

I totally agree with your opinion ATM. The folks in Fargo can drive to Jamestown in an hour or so on Saturday and then hunt til dark and drive home - buying gas, supplies and groceries in Fargo.

I grew up in ND and moved to Mpls in 1994 for work. I've been hunting in ND with my dad and his brothers (who all still live there) since I was 12 and have made the opening weekend trip every year since. They're ticked off too.

Fargo and Grand Forks have a big city wanna-be mentality and ND has limited opportunities - the best of which is its natural resources, farming (and Sioux hockey - still a fan). So, in my opinion, when ND finally has a chance to stick it to it's big neighbor - MN - they do.

Hopefully this all goes away in a year or two - but I doubt it with all of the money at stake. I hope it doesn't turn into a MN-Ontario LOW fiasco.

[STILLNOFISH]

My inlaws live in western ND and according to them the state appears to be split by three different types of people. The one that don't care about out of state hunters one way or the other, ones that hate the idea of non resident hunters and the businesses that rely on out of state hunters. According to my father in law the residents that hate out of state hunters are winning the battle. He feels that they will continue to raise the prices for non resident hunters and push back the day that we are able to hunt, until the non residents refuse to pay the prices and visit the state to hunt. I personally feel like the state is trying to say something to non resident hunters and it is not looking good for the businesses that rely on our dollars. My two cents.

[Guest]

This is all about money and influence.

I've been hunting in Emmons County for many years and we've developed some very close relationships with the residents who graciously allow us to hunt in this special part of the country. I've seen this once "open-to-all" area become so comercially driven in the past 6 years it makes my head spin. It started when a guy from Missouri began paying the landowners to post their land so he could run his "guiding" service for his rich buddies and clients.

I don't think there is one spot left (that wasn't posted) that isn't posted now. This guy even did "early release" Pheasants on this land (Hens and Roosters) so his clients could shoot everything that flies. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure-out this plan.

Now, getting permission on posted land is like pulling teeth. Some landowner's even spray paint big signs with access fee's and stick them in the front yard!

It breaks my heart to think that I won't be able to bring my Son out to hunt in the coming years without paying large fees just for access, let alone the cost of Licenses.

Where does this dump stop? No Duck hunting for me this year--too expensive. And now I have to pick my Upland hunting dates when I buy the license--what if the weather sucks on my second 5-days? I'm stuck going or I loose my second week--way bad.

It's time for Minnesota to fight back. Yes, it will impact the ND non-residents who own cabins here, etc. Don't take it personally, (you have to becomes victims just as we have), but it will force the issue if we raise fees, change our liberal possession laws, etc. so that it provokes a larger voice against this tide of "fee wars".

------------------
Chells

[big_fish_guy]

could the state of Minnesota DNR use 3 million dollars? That's approx. what they could get by raising the non-res fishing license from $34 to $100 given there are about 45,000 ND residents that buy MN non-res fishing licenses. Is it smart to do it? Probably not. Think of the money they spend at the resorts. But who knows... maybe tit for tat is fair turn around if they think they can raise their non-res hunting fees.

[Dano2]

MNPLS Star tribune

Minnesota hunters are staring down the barrel of ever-tightening hunting restrictions and escalating license fees when they travel to other states to hunt.
North Dakota is the latest to impose stricter hunting regulations and higher fees for nonresidents -- including the 15,000 Minnesota hunters who journey there each fall to hunt waterfowl and perhaps 10,000 who hunt pheasants.
That has some Minnesota hunters crying foul and suggesting that Minnesota should retaliate by raising its fishing license fees for North Dakotans or limiting how many days they can fish here.
North Dakota's actions, which mirror similar ones imposed in recent years in South Dakota, Iowa and other states, have Minnesota hunters steaming.
"The whole thing stinks," said John Molkenbur of St. Paul, an avid waterfowl hunter who still plans to hunt ducks in North Dakota this fall.

Minnesota officials have heard the howls.

"This North Dakota situation really ticks me off," Gov. Tim Pawlenty told about 90 members of Minnesota outdoors groups and politicians gathered Saturday in Nicollet, Minn., to discuss outdoors issues.
Pawlenty said he intends to meet with North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven to discuss the situation. "I'm going to go up and tell him this cannot go forward on this basis, with this amount of tension and frustration and, frankly, this amount of unfairness," Pawlenty said.
"We will seek out ways to get his voluntary cooperation to bring some fairness. If that's not successful, we may have to use other means."
The group applauded Pawlenty's comments.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Gene Merriam said last week that state officials are concerned. "However, we don't think it makes sense to escalate the arms race by being retaliatory.
"But they [North Dakotans] can't come over here and enjoy fishing our lakes in the summer and expect our citizens to put up with some pretty onerous provisions during the hunting season there."
Said Rep. Tom Hackbarth, R-Cedar, who heads the House Environment and Natural Resources Policy Committee: "I can promise you that something will happen."

The issue has been controversial in North Dakota, too.

Some residents have pushed hard for the North Dakota Legislature and governor to restrict nonresident hunters. Others said that pulling in the welcome mat will only hurt the state's economy and many small-town businesses that depend on visiting hunters and anglers.
The heart of the issue: Those who support nonresident restrictions say too many nonresident hunters are flooding the state each fall, taking away hunting opportunities from North Dakota residents. They also say nonresidents are leasing or buying hunting land, making it harder for residents to find a place to hunt.
"Some of our residents are concerned about losing their places to hunt," said Paul Schadewald of the North Dakota Game and Fish Department. "And they complain of heavy hunter traffic in some areas."
There has been a dramatic increase in nonresident hunters flocking to North Dakota.
The number of nonresident waterfowl hunters jumped from about 8,000 in 1990 to 30,000 last year, when the state put a cap on the number of available nonresident licenses. (There are about 35,000 resident waterfowl hunters in North Dakota.) There is no cap this year, but other restrictions are intended to check nonresident hunter numbers.
Half of the nonresident waterfowl hunters are Minnesotans.
North Dakota's nonresident pheasant hunter numbers also have climbed from about 8,000 less than 10 years ago to about 22,000. (There are about 50,000 resident pheasant hunters.) Officials don't have a breakdown of where those nonresident hunters are from, but it is assumed that half are from Minnesota.
"Some residents wanted more restrictions than have been imposed," said Schadewald. "Other tourist and economic development people didn't want this. It's been a struggle. And I'm afraid it's going to continue."

Irate callers
The phones have been ringing at the North Dakota Game and Fish Department from upset nonresident hunters.
"This week I've been talking to six to eight nonresidents a day," Schadewald said. "Yes, there are some hard feelings. There are some people who are irate and say they're just not going to come to North Dakota to hunt.
"But that's just what some North Dakota people want."
Schadewald said that when he explains some of the new regulations, some nonresidents aren't as upset.
Here are the major changes facing nonresident hunters in North Dakota this fall:

For the second consecutive season, only residents are allowed to hunt the first week of the waterfowl season, beginning Sept. 27. The intent is to give residents first crack and ducks and geese. Nonresidents can hunt beginning Oct. 4.

Nonresident waterfowl hunters are restricted to 14 days, or two seven-day periods, as they have been for years. They can buy only one license per season. Last year, the state capped the number of nonresident licenses available at 30,000. "We had several thousand hunters who didn't get licenses last year," Schadewald said. There is no cap this year. But there are new zones for nonresidents, and those hunters may hunt only seven days in certain ones.
"One of the concerns is from nonresident landowners who have land in those areas," Schadewald said. "Instead of being able to hunt for two weeks, they can only hunt for one week on their own land."
That could discourage nonresidents from buying or leasing land for hunting, Schadewald acknowledges. "In fact, that's probably part of the intent of the sponsors [of the regulations]," Schadewald said.

Nonresident upland and waterfowl hunters won't be able to hunt from Oct. 11 to Oct. 17 on state-owned and state-leased lands, including those in the PLOTS (Private Lands Open To Sportsmen) program. That's the first week of the pheasant season. Nonresidents still will be able to hunt during that week on private or federal lands.

The restriction mostly will affect pheasant hunters, not waterfowl hunters. Most lakes and sloughs are bordered by private property, Schadewald said. State lands affected are posted with signs indicating they are state-owned or state-leased, Schadewald said.
Some nonresident hunters are upset because the restriction falls during a time when most Minnesota youths are out of school for teachers' conferences and often accompany adults on hunting trips.
The law was intended to affect only pheasant hunting, but the state attorney general ruled that because of its wording, it prohibited all nonresident hunting on those lands for that week.
That leaves a confusing situation: Those lands are open to nonresident waterfowl hunters from Oct. 4 until Oct. 10, then are closed for a week, then reopen to nonresidents on Oct. 18. "It doesn't make any sense to us either," Schadewald said.

The cost of nonresident waterfowl licenses has increased to $100. A small-game license to hunt pheasants also now costs $100. The cost to hunt both pheasants and ducks has nearly doubled to $185. Those costs now are similar to South Dakota's.

Small-game licenses for pheasant hunters, which used to be valid for the entire season, now are good for only 10 consecutive days or two five-day periods, the same as South Dakota's. Hunters can buy multiple licenses.
Fee increases for nonresidents are becoming commonplace. Iowa boosted nonresident fees for a wild turkey license from $81 to $188 last year. And South Dakota now has a special early pheasant season just for residents.
Given the fee increases occurring across the border, some angry Minnesota hunters say the state's nonresident fishing licenses should be increased, at least for North Dakota residents.
The state sells about 42,000 nonresident fishing licenses to North Dakotans. A license, valid for the year, costs $35, or $47 for a husband-wife license.
Those on both sides of the North Dakota-Minnesota line agree border battles won't help retain and recruit hunters and anglers.
"We're seeing barriers erected to hunting opportunities," Merriam said. "It's not in anyone's best interest."
But the problem isn't likely to go away.
Said Schadewald: "What is happening is the places that have good hunting are getting a lot of pressure from all over the country. Where is there good waterfowl hunting in the lower 48 states? There isn't a lot of places. And good pheasant hunting is somewhat limited, too."

North Dakota has both.

[Dano2]

Hers some more interesting reading.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ron Schara: It's time for some equality in gouging
Ron Schara, Star Tribune

Published August 27, 2003 RON27

Gov. Tim Pawlenty asked an interesting question last week: Do we need to retaliate against North Dakota for its hunting laws against Minnesotans?

Gosh, I replied, I'd hate to see Minnesota's leaders acting as childish as North Dakota's leaders have been . . . but maybe it's time for a border war.

We could launch an invasion by sending Jesse, our most famous SEAL, under the Red River to erect signs in Fargo: No Fishing In Minnesota. Sounds silly? Yes, but silly laws against Minnesotans don't seem to bother North Dakota's lawmakers.

Here's the rub: This fall North Dakota has aimed more hunting restrictions at nonresident (read Minnesota) pheasant and waterfowl hunters. The first week of the waterfowl season, opening Sept. 27, is closed to all nonresidents (read Minnesotans). Nonresidents are only allowed to hunt waterfowl 14 days, of which only seven days may be hunted in certain zones. Nonresident pheasant hunters will be allowed to hunt only 10 days per license. Oh, by the way, the cost for a nonresident to hunt both pheasants and waterfowl has nearly doubled.

In their hurried passion to penalize foreign pheasant hunters (Minnesotans), the lawmakers mistakenly passed a law that bars nonresidents from all hunting (pheasant, deer, duck, etc.) from Oct. 11-17 on public or PLOTS lands. The PLOTS lands (from a program called Private Lands Open To Sportsmen) were leased with mostly license dollars from nonresidents, which means those who paid to hunt are now banned for a week.

To resident North Dakota hunters, the game of gouge the nonresident (read Minnesotans) makes sense. However, to North Dakota's dying farm towns and businesses, a law that keeps out nonresident hunters or caps the money they can spend must seem like lunacy. What's more, where is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in this North Dakota duck debacle?

Are North Dakota's restrictions fair when most of the state's best waterfowl production lands were paid for by all of America's duck hunters, not just North Dakotans? So . . . maybe it's time. Send in Jesse. For the 45,000 North Dakotans who buy Minnesota fishing licenses, here's what Gov. Pawlenty ought to do: raise the $34 fishing license to $100 for only 10 days of fishing.

We'll have a border truce when North Dakotans and Minnesotans are gouged equally.

Ron Schara

[BLACKJACK]

I think that this is more than a NoDak issue, all states have raised the non-resident licence prices. Montana and Colorado elk licences are sky high! By gouging the non-resident (and non-voting) hunter, they're able to raise more money AND keep resident licence fees down. It only costs $16 for a resident Colorado elk licence! Iowa has been doing the same, raising their non-resident licence fees. We should do the same, raise the fees for non-resident fishing and small game, AND restrict them to two five day periods! Then keep our licence fees down. In 2000, a MN deer licence cost $22, this year its $27. With the new 'user-fee' philosophy, they're going to keep going up and up!

[Guest]

Now we're getting somewhere

I'm following this ND License and access (PLOTS) issue weekly right now and as we approach the "openers" more of us are speaking out.

Some folks from ND are rebutting that no one complained as loudly when SD started sticking it us years ago--Well, we had ND to fall back on, or Canada, or ???

I hope everyone who is opting to not hunt ND this year and are planning to go to some other State or Canada will still call or write to Gov. Hoeven in ND and gently provide your opinion.

Additionally, we need to keep pushing MN lawmakers to quickly write a bill that will match the new license fees and restrictions imposed on us--this goes for fishing AND hunting in MN.

$400.00 for Deer(no non-residents for opening weekend on public or State Forest land), $100.00 for 2-weeks fishing, and no non-residents allowed for opening week. If you want to fish in MN after your two weeks are up, then buy another $100.00 for 2 more weeks.

------------------
Chells

[cdnfisherman]

Just need to clarify a couple things from this post....from a former MN now ND resident perspective.

Non residents can still hunt public land.....just not PLOTS or land leased by ND Game and Fish. Federal public land and ND school land is open. PLOTS and G & F land is open to NR's on Saturday Oct 18th.

PLOTS and G & F land accounts for something like 1% of ND land....pretty small amount.

I also would like to point out that a ND NR fishing license is less than the MN one....just for comparison! LOL

It is still cheaper to come to ND than any of the other surrounding states or Canada to hunt waterfowl and upland game....and we still have better land access.

I have been following this issue on this site and on other sites and am getting tired of all the complaining. I don't mean to sound ignorant but quit with the whining....deal with it.

If any of you are interested in coming out to western ND for some of the best pheasant/duck hunting in the country....just email me....I will be glad to help you out.

Clarkie
[email protected]

[STILLNOFISH]

I could not disagree more with the last statement that was made. Like I mentioned earlier in my post, my in-laws are from western ND. They have lived in the state their entire lives, and they even think this license thing sucks. I do hunt deer their every year, as well as pheasant and duck. It is getting to the point that I don't know if I even want to go and enjoy the outdoors with my family because of the new laws the state is putting on us non residents. It will also affect me when I go back for the holidays and find out that my ten days are up and I need to buy another****ing License. The Star Tribune mentioned that ND residents buy some 30,000 MN fishing licenses, yet we keep the price stable and even raise the resident fee some. IS THIS FAIR. This whole thing sucks in my opinion, and yes lets get back at the ND residents with our fishing licenses. My 2 cents

[B-bear]

"I also would like to point out that a ND NR fishing license is less than the MN one....just for comparison! LOL"

CDN,
I don't particularly care because I don't hunt ND but I would like to point out that I don't think that comparing fees for the same license is what this is about. It is about holding other states hostage because a certain state has a higher quality experience to offer than another state.

For example:
SD Pheasant hunting =great experience= raise fees

Iowa Pheasant hunting= great experience= raise fees

ND waterfowl= great experience= raise fees/ shorten season for NR

MN fishing = great experience = should we raise the fees?

Why not?
Everybody else has raised the fees/shortened the season for Non-Res on their own states "Hot Commodity".

[ATM]

CD, qouted quit whining and deal with.
I say ok I am dealing with it by not spending valuble hunting money in ND and will contact every gov. official I can think of to raise our out of state fees so 45,000 out of state fisherman will feel our pain. Adam

[jeffyo45]

I am pretty sure it was the whining of the residents of North Dakota that led to the raising of fees and limiting access of NR's. So to say we need to quit our whining, think before you speak. For your elected officials to not consider what this is going to do to the small businesses that rely on out of state hunters is absolutely foolish. That would most likely be the reason our (wiser) elected officials have not retaliated by raising NR fishing fees. It would hurt resorts and other outdoor related businesses.

Just my $.02

[cdnfisherman]

Hey guys.....not wanting to stir up trouble here....just giving you my perspective.

B-bear....my NR fishing license cost comparison was a joke...I know that it is not the same.

I also know that you Minnesotans think pretty highly of your fishing....I lived there for 5 years...I know it is good. I also know that a lot of you would be surprised at the quality of fishing in ND. You would also be surprised at the number of MN fishermen fishing ND waters.

As far as the ND hunting changes hurting small business...that is yet to be seen. It is yet to be seen that we will sell less NR waterfowl/pheasant licenses this year because of the changes. I guess we'll see.

I know that a lot of NR hunters who have been coming here for years for quality hunting will be back....maybe some won't but most will be IMO. I honestly don't think that it will have that big of an impact....again...we'll see.

I hunted in SK last year. License fees were expensive for a young/family guy like me. I paid them and had a great trip. I will go back. It was quality hunting.

I personally do not think that the governor's "summit" will change anything. It is all a political publicity thing.

IMO alot of the publicity from Schara (and the like), has been regarding the PLOTS/ND land thing. To me....this land access thing is a small issue. PLOTS and G&F land accounts for about 1% of all ND lands. It is a non issue in my book. I have a group of friends from MN coming out to hunt opening week of pheasant season. There is still a ton of quality hunting access out there folks!! Sure...some of the PLOTS land is quality pheasant land....but there is still a ton of other quality land available.

Whew!! This has to be my longest post ever!! LOL

Anyways...my offer for hunting still stands if any one is interested!

Clarkie

[Fishing Realtor]

25 yrs. old...
Quit my job every year to chase ducks for 2 months straight; been going to No. Dak. for the past 6 seasons - not this year. Sad to think about...

Manitoba and So. Dak can have my cash.

[huskminn]

Anytime I see Schara come out against something, I have to take the opposite position and be for it. He's been complaining about this for years whenever ANY area state raises its NR fees....especially South Dakota, where he owns land to hunt on. Who knows, maybe he owns land in ND, as well.

Minnesota can never increase fees JUST for ND residents, as it would be unconstitutional. And why would ND residents really care? They've got better hunting and good fishing right there.

Instead of complaining, why don't you stop spending money out of state and give that money to conservation groups to establish good waterfowl and pheasant habitat in Minnesota? That's what the problem really is, isn't it? Compared to Iowa, SD, ND and Montana, Minnesota has horrible pheasant hunting. Compared to ND and SD, Minnesota has poor waterfowl hunting.

The only thing Minnesota really has going for it is fishing. Sure, raise the NR fishing license fees, whatever. That's the only thing Minnesota has that is actually in demand by nonresidents. In other words, a state's NR fees need to be justified by the demand.

SD and ND can raise their fees again and they will still have plenty of NR hunters/anglers....the revenue will still be there. They've got something that everyone in the country wants: game, habitat, land to hunt on and a low resident population to compete with.

If you can find someplace else to hunt pheasants and waterfowl that is just as good and cheaper, by all means go there. If you can't, then maybe you will begin to realize why ND raised its NR fees. One usually gets what they pay for. Quality costs money.

[Guest]

No, the point is not about the license fees as much as the restrictions that go along with them.

I for one would quietly accept these fees IF they allowed a FULL Upland season (rather than 2-weeks), no access restrictions and if they were based on maintaining quality in all respects.

My N/R Whitetail Archery License for North Dakota is now up $50.00 from last year, not a big deal, it's bound to happen so I can live with it. The only saving grace, however, is that the increase fee doesn't come with inane restrictions--thank God!

------------------
Chells