North Dakota Waterfowl Hunting

rich scheffer

rich scheffer

Well-known member
A group of out-of-staters and I have been hunting North Dakota for quite some time now. A few of us have bought second homes there and house quite an array of hunters every fall. We are all getting older and many find that two 7-day license periods inconvenient. We would like to see maybe three 5-day periods or multiple out-of-state licenses as other states offer. North Dakota offers this for small game (primarily pheasant and grouse). Why not waterfowl? If you agree contact me and I will put you on our email list. We have prepared an outline of our ideas and a list of people in ND government to send them to! We will forward these to you.
 
Rich, I would ask you to reevaulate your stance on the length of license. Understand I was a long time NR that visited ND once or twice a year. family also bought a house years ago and this fall was my first as a resident. Over the years and I have seen a substantial increase in hunters in our area and lack of ducks as well. This year I saw first hand why the ducks aren't present. Early goose opens Aug 15th and the ducks get pushed around for a good month before season even begans. Opening weekend for residents ducks get hammered by every guy with a vechile and a gun, and they jump shoot anything in sight. Following weekend, opening of NR, again area got pounded by NR's. Third weekend, opening of pheasants, pounded on anything that wasn't plots, with some residents hunting plots ground. Fourth weekend, PLOTS open, pounded again. and probably the worst. In my opinion the way ND has structured the seaons to benefit the Residents has contributed to this. NR's are forced into fewer weekends and fewer areas. In my opinion the last thing we need is NR's from nearby states getting to hunt 3 weekends which will increase presssure greatly on the weekends. Now if ND was to change the season structure on Opening and the NR PLOTS, then maybe this area could handle it. Again I can see bot sides and think the best for quality of hunting and the ducks to be maintained in the state is spread out the pressure as much as possible. The Resource should be all of our number one priorities. Thanks for entertaining my thoughts.
 
Really? What a horrible idea. The local birds bump down early the way it is and the northern birds stay longer and longer in Canada each year. Bill said it better and much more civilly than I would have even attempted to.
 
Rich, I would ask you to reevaulate your stance on the length of license. Understand I was a long time NR that visited ND once or twice a year. family also bought a house years ago and this fall was my first as a resident. Over the years and I have seen a substantial increase in hunters in our area and lack of ducks as well. This year I saw first hand why the ducks aren't present. Early goose opens Aug 15th and the ducks get pushed around for a good month before season even begans. Opening weekend for residents ducks get hammered by every guy with a vechile and a gun, and they jump shoot anything in sight. Following weekend, opening of NR, again area got pounded by NR's. Third weekend, opening of pheasants, pounded on anything that wasn't plots, with some residents hunting plots ground. Fourth weekend, PLOTS open, pounded again. and probably the worst. In my opinion the way ND has structured the seaons to benefit the Residents has contributed to this. NR's are forced into fewer weekends and fewer areas. In my opinion the last thing we need is NR's from nearby states getting to hunt 3 weekends which will increase presssure greatly on the weekends. Now if ND was to change the season structure on Opening and the NR PLOTS, then maybe this area could handle it. Again I can see bot sides and think the best for quality of hunting and the ducks to be maintained in the state is spread out the pressure as much as possible. The Resource should be all of our number one priorities. Thanks for entertaining my thoughts.
Click to expand...


Have to disagree with you Bill. Ducks are migratory and are a Federal resource - not a State resource. If they were born, raised, and lived their entire life in ND, then I could MAYBE understand the thinking. States with the 14 day license that can be split do this as revenue generators as they know the majority of the hunters will only hunt the one time they are there and never make it back for the 2nd split. I experience this is South Dakota all the time as I buy NR licenses and put the first and last weekend down as the time I want to hunt knowing I can change to last weekend to earlier if I want. I rarely make it back as my schedule changes all the time.

Also, the oroignal poster said they own property in ND. If you are a property owner in ND, and are paying ND State property taxes, why shouldn't you be able to enjoy the same benefits as resident NoDakers when it comes to hunting priviledges? I'd say being a non resident he is getting less benefit for his property taxes than you may be getting.

So, if I own a large amount of farm land that I use for crops and for wildlife management in another State than where my residence is lsited, why shouldn't I be able to hunt it like residents can? I know some individuals who are property owners in SD (non residents) who have to put up with the stupid rules on the 14 day licenses. What do they do to protest the rules - they don't allow anyone on their land to hunt - resident or non resident. I don't see how this benefits anyone. All it does is close off more ares for people to hunt.

My opinion. Hope we can still disagree on this site without causing anyone to shoot one another.

Mark W
 
don't worry mark I still like you. :-) I don't disagree with what you said, like I stated I can see both sides of the arguement. However, I think its kin to what states do from time to time when they think the federal framework is too liberal. In fact I think MN has done it recetly. Where they voluntarily reduce the bag limit or days because the hunters and biolgists feel its necassary based on whats best for the resource in their state. I would quess and don't know if the stats exist, that over 75% of the NR hunters from MN and WI use both periods of their license. I would also venture to say the most of those would take advantage of the third weekend especially the MN hunters where its only a 5 hour drive. I spoke with a number of hunters this year in my area and all were struggling to shoot ducks, mamy didn't care just were greatful to be out. But I also so many NR's road hunting which is the way you can fill your limit and send back pics to your buddies of full tailgate shots. In a perfect world there are a number of things that could be done to alleviate a lot of the pressure that we see now in areas but most of those things will never happen. I don't want ND to go the way of SD for either ducks or the other end of the spectrum SD pheasants. I think its best somewhere in the middle like it is now, with a few adjustents.

On the property tax, we own small house in town and 100 acres, our property taxes are about $300 a year for both. I don't see that as enough state revenue to justifty hunting all year and depleting the resource impacting both Res and NR. Beside ND has a budget surplus, the state is doing just fine. Hope you still like me. :-)
 
Here is what goads me. I know of MN residents who own hundereds of acres of farmland in SD. They pay thousands of dollars in property tax as SD has no income tax and get their revenue through property taxes. When these individuals want to hunt their land, that they paid for, and that they pay for every year in property tax, they can only hunt their land for 14 days and it costs them $100 to do so. Say you want to hunt pheasants on top of the ducks, that's another 14 day license that costs another $100. Stupid in my opinion. I certainly don't know the answer but the current situation isn't it.

Oh yeah, SD even has the special days to hunt just for residents. So, a resident, could in theory, hunt my private land that I pay for when I couldn't hunt it myself. Crazy I say.

I like what MN proposed doing for NR hunting/fishing fees (maybe they even implmented, but I don't think so). I know this came about due to the MN/ND border wars where ND really raised the NR hunting license fees so MN raised the NR fishing fees in response (don't know who acted first bu since I writing this, I'll blame ND). This kept going back and forth and then someone in MN proposed that a NR license would cost that NR the exact amount the non residents State charges NR to hunt/fish in their State. I thought this brilliant. Might be a tad difficult to regulate but it would sure be an interesting approach. This way, the NR who wants to hunt or fish in another State can bitch to their own State about their NR hunting/fishing fees that impact their costs hunting/fishing in other States. A NR complaining to a State in which they do not live and pay taxes (and have no power to elect people to office) gets them no where. Maybe we can extend this from just fees to the 14 day rule as well. You want to fish in MN but live in ND, you can pay $100 and only have the license good for 14 days that you can split in two. Can only fish on designated days and there are special days only for residents. Property owners - you have to abide by the same NR rules and NR's. That might be some fun huh?

Mark W
 
Thats a small hunting house, in one of those dying towns, land is just grass and water so no value to farming. Both are taxed at last selling price, which wasn't a whole lot.
 
But if you can afford to buy hunting land in one of these states you can probably afford the hunting licenses. I hunted our land once this year, buying land to duck hunt in ND or SD doesn't make a lot of sense to me at current prices, as the ducks are always changing their patterns, sloughs dry up and there is other public and private land to hunt. But it still should be about the resource in any of this dicussion.
 
But if you can afford to buy hunting land in one of these states you can probably afford the hunting licenses. I hunted our land once this year, buying land to duck hunt in ND or SD doesn't make a lot of sense to me at current prices, as the ducks are always changing their patterns, sloughs dry up and there is other public and private land to hunt. But it still should be about the resource in any of this dicussion.
Click to expand...


Some people inherit family farm land, they don't buy it. I know land near DeSmet is selling for $4,500/acre for farm land. That's a lot of money. And it isn't about affordability to me, it is the principle behind it.

Mark W
 
I'd argue that ducks are a public resource before they are a state or federal resource.

Sure, they're managed Federally, but it should be up to the states to set the seasons just as they do.

I agree with Matt and Bill, If you want to hunt in ND more, move there, otherwise you get what you get.

Good luck with your lobbying efforts.

-D
 
I think I can offer a bit of a unique perspective having been on both sides of the fence.

When I lived in IA and MN I HATED the SD regulations; however, after being told by my friends here that I'd understand if I would just move here I finally got sick of applying for the lottery and moved here for the waterfowl hunting. We all have choices that we make as to where we live and why. If you want to hunt here all season then move here. Move here and take a huge cut in pay, work in industries that are WAY behind the times, move here to a state with few resources and the lowest paid teachers in the country. Waterfowl may migrate and be a "federal" resource, but they are raised in areas that provide them with resources to live...i.e. a lot of open land because there are not many people making very much money. Most of the year, professionally, I HATE living here; however, for those magic days in the fall it's still worth it...some day that too will likely change.

If the licenses were unrestricted our hunting would be no better than any where else in the country with the ridiculous amounts of pressure that would result. Just because you pay a little property tax it doesn't mean you have full resident rights....if that were the case you could apply the same logic to foreign ownership and voting rights in public elections on a state and national level.

As I see it you have two choices, either voice your vote with your dollars and don't play in these states or move out here and change the rules as a resident of the state, speaking from experience the second choice just wouldn't happen. Not trying to be combative as I was much more vocal than you have been about the absurdity of the rules of SD/ND....until I moved here.

Also for clarification, the resident only days for pheasant are on public land soooo, I couldn't hunt your land, and if we are being realistic most of the out of state ownership of land is geared towards upland hunting and not waterfowl.

Joe
 
I'd argue that ducks are a public resource before they are a state or federal resource.

Sure, they're managed Federally, but it should be up to the states to set the seasons just as they do.

I agree with Matt and Bill, If you want to hunt in ND more, move there, otherwise you get what you get.

Good luck with your lobbying efforts.

-D
Click to expand...


So, extending this logic States should be able to deny any NR the "right" to hunt or fish right?

As a land owner who pays thousands of dollars in farmland property tax, it irrates me that I can't enjoy the same hunting and fishing rights as others who pay the same amount as me (or less, or more) and who can hunt or fish according to the State resident regulations. I'd also be willing to bet that I do more to the land we own to make it duck and pheasant friendly than the majority of those who own land in the State. This also costs money. It is to the point where I'm considering giving up on maintaining the land I own for wildlife and making it all farming land. Land prices keep going up, taxes keep going up (of which I get significantly less for my money than a resident does), and the ability to use my land in the manner in which I want slowly errodes away. I fully realize I'm in the minority of people who own land in SD but this is the way I think and I'm not the only one.

I understand what the residents are saying as well. There has to be middle ground for NR who come in to hunt and that is it verses those who own land, pay taxes and maintain much of the land for wildlife purposes.

Good discussion -

Mark W
 
Last edited:
Yes, States can and do deny NR's the "PRIVILEGE" to hunt in their state.

In an attempt to manage fisheries and wildlife States decide on a number of different rules, and yes "Denying" hunting is one of the many management techniques used.

Death and Taxes are guarantees, hunting and fishing aren't.

Like I said before, I wish good luck to those lobbying for a change in ND, an easier path might be establishing residency there.

-D
 
Yes, States can and do deny NR's the "PRIVILEGE" to hunt in their state.

In an attempt to manage fisheries and wildlife States decide on a number of different rules, and yes "Denying" hunting is one of the many management techniques used.

Death and Taxes are guarantees, hunting and fishing aren't.

Like I said before, I wish good luck to those lobbying for a change in ND, an easier path might be establishing residency there.

-D
Click to expand...



Just so I'm clear, I'm not lobbying for change as I'm not a resident and know what I have to say will not be listened to. Waste of my time. I'd sure like to hear why (from the guys on this site ) I shouldn't be allowed the same priviledges residents get if I'm a tax paying citizen just like any resident in the State. My taxes go to support the same stuff yours do and I use far less resources than a resident (don't have kids using the schools, don't use any social services, use the roads very little, etc...). I have to pay for all these services the State spends its money (that are also priviledges not constitutional rights) but am not afforded the same priviledges when it comes to hunting. Anyway......

Also, in Minnesota hunting and fishing is a constitutional right (law making this so recently passed) and it is not a priviledge. I believe MO has the same law on the books and maybe a couple of other States.

Oh yeah, when I retire, I won't be a resident of MN anymore - taxes are way too high and the new govenor wants to raise them on us "rich" foks even more as we aren't paying our fair share.

Mark W
 
Can you vote in SD? I am sure someone more knowledgeable than me in matter of law can explain why NR property owner arent entitled to all benefits of state residents. I would also argue for hunting privledges, money or land shouldn't give you more rights or abitity to do so. This isn't Europe I prefer to have access for everyone no matter what there social standing is. I also agree ducks are a public resource and access to them should not be denied, but can be restricted for the benefit of the resource, like ND and SD do.

Becoming a resident of ND is not that easy, Matt I am sure call me a wuss, but it is miserable here in the winter and by all local accounts temps have been mild. 90 miles south of me woud be better, they have had less snow and are that much warmer many days.
 
I'm not asking for any special rights, I'm just asking for the same rights as other tax paying citizens of ND/SD have in regards to hunting and fishing priviledges. It is the residents of South Dakota and North Dakota that are asking for the special priviledges. If you don't live here, the thinking goes, we don't want you here. I'd say that is more like the old days of kingdoms, Europe and what not. I want all to be able to fish and hunt just like anyone else can.

I use the tax paying part as that is always the arguemet thrown in the face who want to hunt. "Since you don't opay taxes here, you don't pay for the resource management that residents pay and shouldn't be allowed to use the resourec as we do". I can buy that sort of but if one is a tax paying citizen of that State, why can't they be afford the same rights and priviledges of that State.

Maybe more than we want to get into here but I find the question interesting.

Mark W
 
I seems to me that in a state with such few resources as Joe explains, maybe the state should look at ways to make NR hunting a valuable financial resource.

As to the rights of property owners I liken it to having two homes in two different counties in Ohio. I can only claim one as my primary residence for tax reduction purposes. In the same way Ohioan's who claim their primary residence in Fla for tax benefits can only be in their Ohio residence for 5 months. Primary means one, can't have same benefits from both. May not seem right but that's the way it is.
 
"I seems to me that in a state with such few resources as Joe explains, maybe the state should look at ways to make NR hunting a valuable financial resource."

I can't think of anything worse, exploiting wildlife and hunting for profit. It already being done and no good comes from it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top