I posted the following back on Jan 25 2019. I think all these bills, including the BS SB2315 database boondoggle , boils down to the laws the legislature passed in past sessions, specifically Chapter 36-21.2 which was voted down by 2/3 majority residents.
The sportsmen of ND need to band together to repeal Chapter 36-21.2, otherwise I think that Chapter will be the basis for more SB2315's in the future.
"Bear with me, this is my first post. I actually think SB 2315 has very little to do with hunting access, and everything to do with privacy of landowners, even at the expense of the present law (that works) and the longstanding hunting traditions established in ND. We as sportsmen are the ones that will pay the price in a debate between us vs them (state/agriculture/anti groups). We are now facing an uphill battle, and let me tell you what I think is behind what we are facing. My new guy opinion.
Back in 2012 the citizens of ND overwhelmingly defeated Measure 5 "North Dakota Prevention of Animal Cruelty Initiative" by an approx. 2/3 NO vote. Our legislators, in their infinite wisdom and feelings towards Fluffy the dog/cat/horse/cow, decided they knew better than the citizens, or were being paid for by the anti's. The legislators in the 2013 session (just a few months after the citizens rejected Measure 5) passed a law for the treatment of animals that resembled the words of the measure the citizens rejected, ND Century Code Chapter 36-21.2 if anyone is interested. Anyway, there is language in that law that includes animal seizures if an animal owner is suspected of abuse, neglect or cruelty. If you're not feeding or sheltering your animal "appropriately", your animal can be seized. If you're not seeking medical attention, your animal can be seized. Nobody wants to see Fluffy suffering so it sounds like a good law right? There are serious criminal charges (felonies) on the line without due process, they take your animals and you have to prove your innocence. A person accused of abusing a child in ND has more rights and oversight than a person accused of neglecting or abusing an animal. Same felony charges.
Fast forward to the spring of 2017 and here we go, we have an animal cruelty case posted all over the news. A horse rancher from Gladstone, ND charged with multiple felony cruelty and misdemeanor neglects for a herd of his horses. The Stark County sheriff showed up without notice, took pictures of his horses and property, and before you knew it a fleet of horse trailers were ready to haul off the horses for medical attention/adoption/sale. There's so much to that story that I think it's best left for you to read up on.
Thanks to the legislators in 2013 we have a bad animal cruelty law, and now an agriculture community that is raising the middle finger at the legislators (and the hunting community) saying stay off my lawn, don't come hauling away my animals, my land is posted until I give you permission. Period. In other words, I don't want my animals seized and my financial future ruined because someone (maybe a hunter) on or near my property might think my dog/cat/horse/cow is on the skinny side. Last summer I emailed 5 legislators in ND with comments and suggestions to revise the animal treatment chapter this session. None of the legislators wanted to touch it.
The ag community isn't going to sit back and tolerate the government entering their property without permission, taking pictures and seizing their assets/animals. HB 1503 was introduced this session to provide a penalty for observing, recording and photographing wildlife on private property without permission. HB 1290 was introduced to include language pertaining to law enforcement entry onto private land and what can be used as evidence in court.
As a feel-good measure SB 2315 provides for an opt-in database for land open to hunting. We already have the PLOTS program. Will PLOTS go away if this database is created? Without an incentive I predict very low participation in the opt-in database, and maybe even a dead PLOTS program. Hunting in ND could look very different in the future. Many people, including myself, will find another hobby.
To put a wrap on my opinions, ask members in the ag community, your legislators, or anyone with decision making power if the animal seizure language in Chapter 36-21.2 Treatment of Animals has any bearing on their position regarding SB 2315. I'm trying to put the pieces together, and it appears to me the animal laws might be driving the posted land effort. If so, we can thank the legislators for all of this."
