The "NEW" SB 2315 - Pucker Up Buttercup!

[dean nelson]

The group to get involved in this are all the hotel and bar owners because they tend to be quite the force when they become organized.

 

[Brian Renville]

Just talked to a couple more landowners. All for it.

 

[wslayer]

Just got a reply back from 1 of my district Senators he agrees would be detrimental to all.

 

[ndlongshot]

Just talked to a couple more landowners. All for it.

Thats because they havent read it. The initial concept was understandable. This has turned into one big piece of shit that has nothing to do with the original intent. Make them read it, and then get a follow up.

 

[Brian Halse]

Can anyone tell me if it is currently legal for a guide/outfitter to bring clients on unposted private land? I really don't know what I think of this bill but would like to know what it changes.

 

[BBQBluesMan]

Can anyone tell me if it is currently legal for a guide/outfitter to bring clients on unposted private land? I really don't know what I think of this bill but would like to know what it changes.

I beleive a guide or outfitter has to have written permission to be able to guide on private land.

 

[Whisky]

Can anyone tell me if it is currently legal for a guide/outfitter to bring clients on unposted private land? I really don't know what I think of this bill but would like to know what it changes.

According to the ND guides and outfitters handbook they do not currently need permission to guide on unposted land. Which confuses me even more why that language would be put in this bill... Google it, page 6.

- - - Updated - - -

I beleive a guide or outfitter has to have written permission to be able to guide on private land.

If its posted, yes. Unposted, no.

 

[Brian Halse]

I did google it and saw the same thing. So the proposed bill doesn't allow guides to do anything new, just maintains a database of unposted (green/yellow/red) land??? I would think most outfitters in any area already are aware where the unposted land is and if it is worth hunting. Am I missing something? I can see where it would promote internet scouting but a person would still have to see the land to know if it were worth hunting. I seriously don't want to start a pissing match here but would like to understand why people don't like it. I sometimes get the feeling that some are against any changes from "all land is unposted" unless there are current signs.

 

[SLE]

All you have to do is read any of the existing three threads on this website related to this bill to figure out why the majority are opposed to the bill in either form. I don’t think we need another 10 pages rehashing the same same shit. I think what’s already posted should give you a good idea :;:deadhorse

 

[riverview]

Just talked to a couple more landowners. All for it.

fake news

 

[Brian Renville]

fake news

Whatever you say pal. The general consensus is “it’s bullshit that we need to follow certain rules putting up signs in order to keep people off our private property, it’s private properly you should always stay off unless you are given permission”. Just what I was told. That and out here in the west a lot of guys are really tired all the crap the “newcomers” brought with, mainly go for a cruise wherever and whenever they feel like, road or not.

 

[Migrator Man]

Neither of wich hunt or spend much time outdoors at all. I have a hard time valuing their opinions on the topic.

Scott Hennen is in bed with the Farm Bureau’s Daryl Lies so that doesn’t surprise me. But then again he also supports ethanol and wind energy so I guess it’s all about who pays for his show and not about being a true conservative. We know the Farm Bureau’s position on everything hunting and it’s not good for the ordinary hunter.

- - - Updated - - -

Whatever you say pal. The general consensus is “it’s bullshit that we need to follow certain rules putting up signs in order to keep people off our private property, it’s private properly you should always stay off unless you are given permission”. Just what I was told. That and out here in the west a lot of guys are really tired all the crap the “newcomers” brought with, mainly go for a cruise wherever and whenever they feel like, road or not.

We as the public should be able to hunt the public ROWs but that is a concession the public has given to landowners. We have also given them a concession that their farm residences are not taxed fully like our residences in cities are. Why should I have to pay more taxes on my 300k house than a farmer has to pay on 300k worth of land? Why can’t this be equal? Why can’t non profit groups buy land so we can use it for hunting? If this bill passes there will be a lot of support for sportsmen groups to be able to buy up land for their members to access. The Farm Bureau not only doesn’t want non profits to take land out of production, but they want the state to sell all of the state owned land and further limit access to land. There is a reason why people of all political parties see the need to protect our public lands from being sold to the highest bidder. It’s our only guaranteed access we have left.

 

[Brian Renville]

All valid. I still get the feeling a lot of guys, not that they’d like to admit it, want to see the state pay them to let people hunt like here in MT.

 

[Feildhunter701]

Make it like montana.. but montana has a hell of a lot more public land..I believe North Dakota has the least of all the western states.

 

[NDbowman]

Scott Hennen is in bed with the Farm Bureau’s Daryl Lies so that doesn’t surprise me. But then again he also supports ethanol and wind energy so I guess it’s all about who pays for his show and not about being a true conservative. We know the Farm Bureau’s position on everything hunting and it’s not good for the ordinary hunter.


- - - Updated - - -



We as the public should be able to hunt the public ROWs but that is a concession the public has given to landowners. We have also given them a concession that their farm residences are not taxed fully like our residences in cities are. Why should I have to pay more taxes on my 300k house than a farmer has to pay on 300k worth of land? Why can’t this be equal? Why can’t non profit groups buy land so we can use it for hunting? If this bill passes there will be a lot of support for sportsmen groups to be able to buy up land for their members to access. The Farm Bureau not only doesn’t want non profits to take land out of production, but they want the state to sell all of the state owned land and further limit access to land. There is a reason why people of all political parties see the need to protect our public lands from being sold to the highest bidder. It’s our only guaranteed access we have left.

not trying to hijack the thread, but how much tax is there on a 300k home? I'm sure it depends what city or county its in as well.

 

[Migrator Man]

All valid. I still get the feeling a lot of guys, not that they’d like to admit it, want to see the state pay them to let people hunt like here in MT.

We have that in ND it’s called plots. The game and fish won’t be able to afford plots if this bill passes.

- - - Updated - - -

not trying to hijack the thread, but how much tax is there on a 300k home? I'm sure it depends what city or county its in as well.

About 0.9-1% in ward county

 

[njsimonson]

The big takeaway from re-writing and including more language on guides and outfitters in the amendment, is that now it's even more of a "hunting bill" than it was before. The extensive modifications to Section 20.1 in the amended 2315 - the violation language, the prima facie hunting activity language, the hunting database, the hunting advisory group and the guide and outfitter references - in this new version totally blow that argument out of the water, and NONE of that new language favors hunters, the complete re-write of the guiding section in the amendment was the rotten cherry on the crap sundae this bill and amendment have created.

We all knew this was a hunting bill to start -- yet the proponents' rallying cry of "it's not a hunting bill!" "it's not a hunting bill!" echoed over and over and over again online, in the papers and at the hearing. Now with the amendment, there's no denying it. It IS a hunting bill, and it's a terrible one.

What I don't understand, if this was JUST about property rights, why would anyone be for this version because a) you're going to have to register your land in the database, but then, b) most likely, you're still going to have to put up signs to tell people to stay off anyway. Look to SWMN. There's a posted sign on just about every corner, and it's not required --why-- because landowners WANT people to know to stay off. So now this amendment with the proposed database has landowners thinking - "I won't have to post my land" and everything will be better. It won't. Criminals will still be out there, poachers will still poach, and with the confusion this bill will cause - honest hunters will get caught in the mix, and landowners who think they posted their acres online will as well (when they put in the wrong description, a tenant does it incorrectly or unauthorized, the database gets hacked, they accidentally click the wrong radio button, etc. etc.)

Stiffer Penalties. Better Education. Firearm Forfeiture for Trespass. A Posting Relief Fund for Landowners.

Those would solve the perceived and real problems at issue here. We've got to get back to the drawing board.

 

[Davey Crockett]

What happened with the idea of having the new law exempt during hunting season ? Not part of the new draft ?

 

[PrairieGhost]

What happened with the idea of having the new law exempt during hunting season ? Not part of the new draft ?

The only problem with that is coyote season is all year. Glad your still looking for alternatives though. I think leave it as is, but I'm still willing to pay $1 on my hunting license for a fund to pay for good posted signs that the Game and Fish could give out for free. Let the Game and Fish ship them to county offices where they are ready for pickup. I still like the idea where they can write in species posted for and duration of posting for example November and December etc. I know at least half the posted land would be open for coyote after January 1st and landowners would just as soon not be bothered.

 

[Riggen&Jiggen]

Sent my email off yesterday. I received about 4 responses. 3 voting no and 1 that is going to vote yes. The vote yes is Terry Wanzek for the 29th district. I believe he lives in Jamestown.