The "NEW" SB 2315 - Pucker Up Buttercup!

[ShootnBlanks]

Do you guys really think alot of people will go with green? Given the option of red or green i would guess most will go red knowing they cant be asked to hunt if its labeled red..... the reason alot of ground is left unposted is because they dont want to be hasseled.... how many landowners are going to advertise on a phone app their land is a free for all? No way am I buying this.... most will make their property red and only let a few people they know on it.

Any landowner that takes time for this shit will go RED.

 

[agriffith]

If this passes, how does the 85 year old land owner with no computer skills at all handle this? He normally manually posts the land & lets people who ask hunt..............now his land is listed as "green" until he finds someone to change it to yellow or red?

 

[zoops]

Do you guys really think alot of people will go with green? Given the option of red or green i would guess most will go red knowing they cant be asked to hunt if its labeled red..... the reason alot of ground is left unposted is because they dont want to be hasseled.... how many landowners are going to advertise on a phone app their land is a free for all? No way am I buying this.... most will make their property red and only let a few people they know on it.

Pretty much what I thought when I read Erbele's summary as well. I'd rather see no 'yellow' option...I could see the guys that are ok with the occasional hunter going yellow at first being inundated with calls, etc and then switching to red. Then, you go ask and "what are you doing bothering me, I registered the land as closed?" I also think few would go 'green.' If they wanted it advertised they'd have it in PLOTS and get paid for it. As with traditional posting, it's a domino effect - once a few landowners start to post, more do as hunters get funneled to the open stuff.

I also have questions about who'd have access to 'post' a given quarter. Would it have the landowner AND renter on the database to contact? Claiming ignorance here but does the state even know who rents every quarter of land out there? I see it being very cumbersome.

Also, who pays to keep this database updated???

 

[Trip McNeely]

Quick thought, just shooting from the hip....why couldnt the cost of signage and reasonable time be used as a write-off for owners/operators? Would it be a burden to post then? What if owners/operators where given a 4x multiplier on their write-off for posting gnf supplied signs that read “ hunting access only- one party per parcel” or something to that effect?...... sign cost could be used by plots dollars.

- - - Updated - - -

What if we take all the time and energy the sponsors of this bill put into a system that would inevitably screw the nd sportsmen and went the completely opposite direction. Giving tax incentive would surely reduce burden of posting no? And increasing that incentive by multiples may entice more landowners to keep land open right? All without advertising to the world via technology they do so.....

 

[Obi-Wan]

Pretty much what I thought when I read Erbele's summary as well. I'd rather see no 'yellow' option...I could see the guys that are ok with the occasional hunter going yellow at first being inundated with calls, etc and then switching to red. Then, you go ask and "what are you doing bothering me, I registered the land as closed?" I also think few would go 'green.' If they wanted it advertised they'd have it in PLOTS and get paid for it. As with traditional posting, it's a domino effect - once a few landowners start to post, more do as hunters get funneled to the open stuff.

I also have questions about who'd have access to 'post' a given quarter. Would it have the landowner AND renter on the database to contact? Claiming ignorance here but does the state even know who rents every quarter of land out there? I see it being very cumbersome.

Also, who pays to keep this database updated???

The one who will be locked out of the land will pay for the data base -Hunters

 

[Trip McNeely]

Now we can get a little closer to a block management system......

 

[Retired Educator]

I'm betting if there was a fiscal note attached to this where the cost of the database came out of the general fund there would be way less support from many Senators. Not sure why the G & F is in charge of compiling and maintaining that data.

Perhaps that would be best as they may be more successful in contacting willing landowners. Do need to change who pays the bill.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

I'm betting if there was a fiscal note attached to this where the cost of the database came out of the general fund there would be way less support from many Senators. Not sure why the G & F is in charge of compiling and maintaining that data.

Perhaps that would be best as they may be more successful in contacting willing landowners. Do need to change who pays the bill.

They could get the money from the Outdoor Heritage Fund. Wouldn't cost the taxpayers anything because it's free money ya know.

 

[PrairieGhost]

If this is a trespass/ landowner bill shouldn't it come out of agriculture? Maybe if it's such a great idea landowners should pay for it. I was thinking about free signs myself, but if we get right down to this trespass thing and all the trouble with DAPL we didn't cause that. Why all the hunter language in this bill?
Three four couples get together nearly every Friday night and go to a different restaurant in town or even to somewhere else in North Dakota. One of my good friends is an insurance adjuster. I was disappointed at some of the stories he believes. Last night he told me that the majority of landowners get hunters driving through their unharvested fields, in 4X4 and cutting cookies all over their unharvested fields. I don't believe it. For one thing how many fields are unharvested during a hunting season. No one in their right mind is going to drive through corn, sunflowers, or beans. Wheat and small grains are harvested. Why do people tell and repeat such crap? It's still bugging me today. I think crap is made up by people like the ones that want this bill. They tell crazy stories to get what they want.
I guess what angers me is they always assume it's hunters. If there is a new hole in a rural stop sign in April they say hunters shot it. No they didn't a vandal misusing a gun did it. Tracks across a field they think is hunters. I live in the country and have reported local kids on their 4x4 riping up beans in July. I wish people would more often use the brains God gave them.

 

[njsimonson]

Still nothing on bill tracker this morning. I've got verbal confirmation that there was an amendment offered yesterday in committee that actually LOWERS the penalty for trespass under the amended bill to an INFRACTION. Just what we need - LESS PENALTIES for the jerks and criminals that have caused this mess in the first place and made real sportsmen look bad. How does THAT deter illegal trespassing?!

I've got nothing in print for all of yesterday's alleged amendments, and I'm guessing there's a reason for that - this will stay bottled up in committee until Monday, and Legislative Services won't get anything in writing out to the public until just before the vote. I'm concerned we won't see a bill tracker update until after the dust settles on the Senate Floor.

I understand there was a push by G&F to include public citizens on the database advisory group yesterday, but I don't have anything to confirm that was one of the amendments yet. Not knowing what's going on is increasingly frustrating, but it suggests to me that all of these changes are either so bad or so confusing, the proponents DON'T WANT THEM TO GET OUT until after the vote has been taken.

For just those reasons alone, I'd still encourage people to tell their Senators to VOTE NO on SB 2315 as we know it to be now...tough loss for the sponsors who didn't share anything and spun a narrative without providing anything to confirm their stories.

EMAIL THE SENATE TODAY & TOMORROW - I still expect a vote Monday

hcanderson@nd.gov, jbakke@nd.gov, bbekkedahl@nd.gov, raburckhard@nd.gov, dclemens@nd.gov, dcook@nd.gov, kdavison@nd.gov, ddever@nd.gov, jdotzenrod@nd.gov, madwyer@nd.gov, jayelkin@nd.gov, rfors@nd.gov, jgrabinger@nd.gov, jheckaman@nd.gov, khogan@nd.gov, dhogue@nd.gov, rholmberg@nd.gov, jkannianen@nd.gov, jklein@nd.gov, kkrebsbach@nd.gov, ckreun@nd.gov, olarsen@nd.gov, dklarson@nd.gov, galee@nd.gov, jlee@nd.gov, lluick@nd.gov, rmarcellais@nd.gov, tmathern@nd.gov, scottmeyer@nd.gov, jmyrdal@nd.gov, eoban@nd.gov, doehlke@nd.gov, aosland@nd.gov, dpatten@nd.gov, mpiepkorn@nd.gov, npoolman@nd.gov, lrobinson@nd.gov, jroers@nd.gov, kroers@nd.gov, drust@nd.gov, dgschaible@nd.gov, rsorvaag@nd.gov, svedaa@nd.gov, tmwanzek@nd.gov, rwardner@nd.gov

 

[Reprobait]

Minnesota has a civil ticket they can write for trespass violations. They can write this pretty easily. There can also be criminal violations. To the best of my memory. Maybe that is what they are getting at.

- - - Updated - - -

This has become one big mess and needs to be studied and worked on over the next couple years.

 

[Uncle Jimbo]

They could get the money from the Outdoor Heritage Fund. Wouldn't cost the taxpayers anything because it's free money ya know.

Thats sounds exactly like the type of “outdoor heritage” you and your Farm Bureau buddy Daryl would be in support of.

I would be interested to hear any constructive suggestions, related to this bill, you have that would bridge the gap between hunters and landowners. Help us be part of a solution vs throwing a Molotov cocktail and walking away.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

Would love to help you out Uncle Jimbo but I'm out the door to more meetings today concerning this:

https://nodakangler.com/forums/show...-going-to-deal-with-CWD-this-month-wow!/page4

My downfall is, everyone is being paid to attend meetings all over the States, except me.

 

[hoythunter]

Why doesn't the game and fish hire 4-5 college kids for the summer, give them a vehicle and gps, and have landowners call in legal descriptions of what they want posted, and have them post land all summer. Has to be cheaper and less headache than the data base.

 

[Petras]

Do you guys really think alot of people will go with green? Given the option of red or green i would guess most will go red knowing they cant be asked to hunt if its labeled red..... the reason alot of ground is left unposted is because they dont want to be hasseled.... how many landowners are going to advertise on a phone app their land is a free for all? No way am I buying this.... most will make their property red and only let a few people they know on it.

Honestly I would think that if a landowner doesn't post their land just for the simple fact they could care less and don't want to be hassled with phone calls, I don't think that they will take the time to log in to a database and change the status of their land from green to red just to not allow people to hunt.... if they were ok with people hunting the land before this system, they'd probably be ok with people hunting it after this system.

Personally, if what Eberle supposedly sent out is actually how the finished bill ends up being, I may not be so against it. Green means go, yellow means slow down and contact the land owner, red means stop. pretty simple, if thats how it actually turns out.

 

[fireone]

Honestly I would think that if a landowner doesn't post their land just for the simple fact they could care less and don't want to be hassled with phone calls, I don't think that they will take the time to log in to a database and change the status of their land from green to red just to not allow people to hunt.... if they were ok with people hunting the land before this system, they'd probably be ok with people hunting it after this system.

Personally, if what Eberle supposedly sent out is actually how the finished bill ends up being, I may not be so against it. Green means go, yellow means slow down and contact the land owner, red means stop. pretty simple, if thats how it actually turns out.

Yeah, but that is a crapshoot. What if farmers just go red, then we are stuck with it. And remember if the senate passes this bill then it goes to house and anything could happen there for bad amendments. If it can't be killed it should go to a 2 year interim committee study, get the details how it would work, what it would cost, how many hunters might quit, and what revenue drop small businesses would get hit with. Hold hearings around the state like they have done for other bill studies. That would be a lot cheaper than spending a million bucks and having the law implode.

 

[Petras]

I agree it is a bit of a crapshoot, but I feel that if landowners who own a 40 acre chunk here or there, or a quarter here and a quarter down the road a mile aren't doing the minute amount of work require to post their land now, odds are they don't give to squats about people hunting on their land, so even if they did for some reason decide to go yellow or red on the database map, if contacted they would probably let people on to hunt as long as the hunters are respectful...

The more I think about this, the more I begin to lean towards this being a pretty decent compromise for all parties involved. Landowners don't have to spend money and time to post their land if they don't want people hunting. If other landowners could give two shits less and don't want to be bothered, they leave it green and let people have access without being contacted... It gives landowners a choice on whether or not to post their land, makes it easier if they choose to post, and it also provides a resource for hunters to make it easier to obtain contact information for land that is huntable but posted...

 

[zoops]

I agree it is a bit of a crapshoot, but I feel that if landowners who own a 40 acre chunk here or there, or a quarter here and a quarter down the road a mile aren't doing the minute amount of work require to post their land now, odds are they don't give to squats about people hunting on their land, so even if they did for some reason decide to go yellow or red on the database map, if contacted they would probably let people on to hunt as long as the hunters are respectful...

The more I think about this, the more I begin to lean towards this being a pretty decent compromise for all parties involved. Landowners don't have to spend money and time to post their land if they don't want people hunting. If other landowners could give two shits less and don't want to be bothered, they leave it green and let people have access without being contacted... It gives landowners a choice on whether or not to post their land, makes it easier if they choose to post, and it also provides a resource for hunters to make it easier to obtain contact information for land that is huntable but posted...

The language about guides being able to go on 'unposted' land absolutely needs to go though...

 

[ndlongshot]

and it also provides a resource for hunters to make it easier to obtain contact information for land that is huntable but posted...

Are you sure? Does it say anywhere that their contact info will actually be made available? Maybe I missed it.

I feel, if you are a participant (yellow or red) it should be mandatory that you have to provide contact info.

 

[Holmsvc]

Why doesn't the game and fish hire 4-5 college kids for the summer, give them a vehicle and gps, and have landowners call in legal descriptions of what they want posted, and have them post land all summer. Has to be cheaper and less headache than the data base.

So what about the landowner that says, I have family that deer hunt my land, I would like it posted just the month of November. I don’t want people calling or stopping by all fall. How will that be handled?