Updated SB 2315 Online

[Retired Educator]

I am not in favor of a change from what we currently have. Let's make that clear. At the same time we all know it's going to come someday. Why does it fall on the landowner to bear the expense and time to post their land. It's not ours no matter how much we protest.

If we can get this stopped this session it's going to come up again in the next session. If it is stopped this session perhaps we would be better off working with the landowners to come up with a solution that everyone can live with. A data system may not be a bad idea if we could spend the next two years completing the app. Testing to make sure it's workable, and then have a well-written change that is ready to use.

If a data system isn't feasible then let's come up with something that is. I have hunted in Sssk. and where I hunted (waterfowl), every municipality (smaller than a county but bigger than townships) had maps available with the landowner name. It wasn't difficult finding the landowners at all. The most difficulty was if they were still harvesting, contacting them without interrupting their work. Stop at the nearest farm and ask for directions was usually sufficient. One time received permission from a nice lady only to find out the next day that her and her husband didn't own the field we were asking about. They owned the next quarter south. Landowner showed up the next day as we were picking up and was very understanding after we explained what had happened. Wasn't overly happy but understood it was an honest mistake. Didn't dare ask for permission for the next day though. The municipality maps are relatively inexpensive compared to county atlases. Last ones I've purchased were about $7 each.

If we get this stopped this session and don't help write our own version of a bill the next session we are going to be pissed all over again with no one to blame other than ourselves. In my mind the one solution that would work for both sides is 1) no posting necessary with 2) a good data system to identify and contact proper landowners/operators. One without the other does nothing for either side. Keep it simple for both landowners and sportsman.

I have found over the years that I prefer actually visiting with landowners personally than doing everything over the phone. Relationships develop much better in person. Sometimes I've received permission over the phone and then stopped in after the hunt to thank and visit. One of the problems with writing in a rule of written permission is "you may be turned down because the owner does not want to be bothered when busy to write out a permission slip." Imagine stopping a combine to ask permission and then take the person's time to write it out. Let's make sense and keep it easy.

I'll quit here.

 

[Migrator Man]

I am not in favor of a change from what we currently have. Let's make that clear. At the same time we all know it's going to come someday. Why does it fall on the landowner to bear the expense and time to post their land. It's not ours no matter how much we protest.

If we can get this stopped this session it's going to come up again in the next session. If it is stopped this session perhaps we would be better off working with the landowners to come up with a solution that everyone can live with. A data system may not be a bad idea if we could spend the next two years completing the app. Testing to make sure it's workable, and then have a well-written change that is ready to use.

If a data system isn't feasible then let's come up with something that is. I have hunted in Sssk. and where I hunted (waterfowl), every municipality (smaller than a county but bigger than townships) had maps available with the landowner name. It wasn't difficult finding the landowners at all. The most difficulty was if they were still harvesting, contacting them without interrupting their work. Stop at the nearest farm and ask for directions was usually sufficient. One time received permission from a nice lady only to find out the next day that her and her husband didn't own the field we were asking about. They owned the next quarter south. Landowner showed up the next day as we were picking up and was very understanding after we explained what had happened. Wasn't overly happy but understood it was an honest mistake. Didn't dare ask for permission for the next day though. The municipality maps are relatively inexpensive compared to county atlases. Last ones I've purchased were about $7 each.

If we get this stopped this session and don't help write our own version of a bill the next session we are going to be pissed all over again with no one to blame other than ourselves. In my mind the one solution that would work for both sides is 1) no posting necessary with 2) a good data system to identify and contact proper landowners/operators. One without the other does nothing for either side. Keep it simple for both landowners and sportsman.

I have found over the years that I prefer actually visiting with landowners personally than doing everything over the phone. Relationships develop much better in person. Sometimes I've received permission over the phone and then stopped in after the hunt to thank and visit. One of the problems with writing in a rule of written permission is "you may be turned down because the owner does not want to be bothered when busy to write out a permission slip." Imagine stopping a combine to ask permission and then take the person's time to write it out. Let's make sense and keep it easy.

I'll quit here.

I agree if this doesn’t end up passing it will come up again in the future. The thing is that the vocal minority will not stop until the entire state is no trespass. They are still not happy with the burden being on them to have to post even on this database. They will not compromise forever and will keep pushing the issue until they get their way. The thing is I don’t think the database is the solution until it is proven to work. Build the app and change the law later.

 

[PrairieGhost]

I am not in favor of a change from what we currently have. Let's make that clear. At the same time we all know it's going to come someday. Why does it fall on the landowner to bear the expense and time to post their land. It's not ours no matter how much we protest.

I could live with that if they never took another tax dollar for anything. As it is they talk about the expense of those posted signs, but they have no problem dipping into what the rest of us pay in April 15. I'm sick of the one way street.

They talked about it being a landowner rights issue. It went through the ag committee. Why is Game and Fish stuck with implementing it, and perhaps paying for part or all of it?

I agree if this doesn’t end up passing it will come up again in the future. The thing is that the vocal minority will not stop until the entire state is no trespass. They are still not happy with the burden being on them to have to post even on this database. They will not compromise forever and will keep pushing the issue until they get their way. The thing is I don’t think the database is the solution until it is proven to work. Build the app and change the law later.​

If we can't somehow limit lobbyists were going to get crapped on year after year after year. It's like a snake with it's teeth sloped backwards, every time you wiggle your deeper down the throat.

 

[Davy Crockett]

I could live with that if they never took another tax dollar for anything. As it is they talk about the expense of those posted signs, but they have no problem dipping into what the rest of us pay in April 15. I'm sick of the one way street.

You are painting with a broad brush again, Why is it so hard to understand that not all landowners are farmers ? I pay full taxes on my land and my house just like everybody else but get thrown into the " Other side" or whatever you want to call anyone that isn't 100% in agreement with the way trespassing laws are now.






If we can't somehow limit lobbyists were going to get crapped on year after year after year. It's like a snake with it's teeth sloped backwards, every time you wiggle your deeper down the throat.

Be careful what you wish for , That could also backfire and put a damper on a lot of the things we all enjoy in a hurry.

 

[deleted member]

I still think an initiated measure might be the answer.

 

[Petras]

The way I see it is this: We can either work with them on this and improve relations with landowners, or we can continue to bitch and moan about how nothing needs to change because it's perfect the way it is for US while relationships with landowner deteriorate and land continues to be locked up because more and more landowners despise sportsmen for thinking they have a right to enter onto their land....

There has to be some give and take and willingness to work with each other.... Personally I feel that we need landowners a hell of a lot more than landowners need us when it comes to enjoying the outdoors and the great hunting opportunities that our state has to offer.

The simple fact that the sponsors of this bill, who were being pushed by the Stockmans association, chose to go from the absolute no trespass bill that initially came out to what was just passed is a huge step back on their part. They took it from Gung-ho balls out extreme legislation, to something that actually, in my eyes will be helpful to sportsmen in ND. Hell, if they are able to make this thing work (which I honestly don't think will be that hard to do), I won't need to purchase a $30 onX maps subscription for the state of ND every year.... I personally would gladly put part of that $30 onX subscription that I no longer need to buy towards helping to pay for the database...

But that's just me. This is going to be my last post on this because I'm sick of hashing this shit out. I have better shit to do with my time than argue with people on the internet.

 

[Obi-Wan]

I could live with that if they never took another tax dollar for anything. As it is they talk about the expense of those posted signs, but they have no problem dipping into what the rest of us pay in April 15. I'm sick of the one way street.

You are painting with a broad brush again, Why is it so hard to understand that not all landowners are farmers ? I pay full taxes on my land and my house just like everybody else but get thrown into the " Other side" or whatever you want to call anyone that isn't 100% in agreement with the way trespassing laws are now.






If we can't somehow limit lobbyists were going to get crapped on year after year after year. It's like a snake with it's teeth sloped backwards, every time you wiggle your deeper down the throat.

Be careful what you wish for , That could also backfire and put a damper on a lot of the things we all enjoy in a hurry.

it has been said that 20% of the hunters have ruined it for the other 80% so the same can be said that 80% of the land owners have ruined it for the other 20%

 

[PrairieGhost]

The way I see it is this: We can either work with them on this and improve relations with landowners, or we can continue to bitch and moan about how nothing needs to change because it's perfect the way it is for US while relationships with landowner deteriorate and land continues to be locked up because more and more landowners despise sportsmen for thinking they have a right to enter onto their land....

That's the way I felt for 30 years. The problem is while they want support they get more and more and give less and less. When people started paying to hunt pheasants around Mott things accelerated down hill. Money destroyed many farmer/Hunter relationships. Some good farmers and some we can never give enough to that they will be happy.

This is just the start, and it's not going to get better kissing up so we have to try something else. I don't know what, but we better start thinking.

 

[Davy Crockett]

it has been said that 20% of the hunters have ruined it for the other 80% so the same can be said that 80% of the land owners have ruined it for the other 20%

I agree , So why do I see both sides painting with such a broad brush and shooting from the hip on gossip rather than facts and looking for some middle ground based on reality ? I haven't taken the time to look into the committee that is going to try to iron out the problems but I won't say they are a bunch of "hunters" that want their way and a bunch of "farmers" that want their way. I'd like to think they are educated enough to realize they might have to give an inch to be able to gain an inch and find some middle ground that will make everyone happy. I know that's impossible but it's a goal. I sure hope you take into account the way your senators voted on all the Senate bills and not just one, Put yourself in their shoes.

The perfect compromise is one that will make both sides somewhat happy not both unhappy .

- - - Updated - - -

That's the way I felt for 30 years. The problem is while they want support they get more and more and give less and less. When people started paying to hunt pheasants around Mott things accelerated down hill. Money destroyed many farmer/Hunter relationships. Some good farmers and some we can never give enough to that they will be happy.

This is just the start, and it's not going to get better kissing up so we have to try something else. I don't know what, but we better start thinking.

I think GST used to whoop your ass so bad that you carry such a huge chip on your shoulder that there isn't one farmer in the state of ND that would ever be good enough for you.

 

[Retired Educator]

Sounds like a misprint but read tonight that SB2315 doesn't take full affect until 2022 I think it was. Not until all the info for the database is fully functional.That comment was supposedly made by a legislator. Can't find the article now, has anyone else read that?

 

[Davy Crockett]

Sounds like a misprint but read tonight that SB2315 doesn't take full affect until 2022 I think it was. Not until all the info for the database is fully functional.That comment was supposedly made by a legislator. Can't find the article now, has anyone else read that?

The way I read it a couple days ago there is no hurry or a deadline in implementing it and things will stay just the way they are until the kinks are ironed out .

- - - Updated - - -

That was just hearsay/here read but it sounds plausible .

 

[eyexer]

it's simple. just get a measure before the voters to put an end to this option forever. then it can just all go away.

 

[NDSportsman]

Sounds like a misprint but read tonight that SB2315 doesn't take full affect until 2022 I think it was. Not until all the info for the database is fully functional.That comment was supposedly made by a legislator. Can't find the article now, has anyone else read that?

It has to get through the house first, then has to be signed by the governor. Something tells me this thing is going to keep evolving quite a bit by the time it becomes actual law if ever. Who knows what the final thing is gonna look like, what a fluster cluck.

 

[KDM]

Sportsman should see this compromise for what it really is IMO and hopefully contact their reps and get this thing killed. Do NOT be fooled. This so called compromise essentially is no compromise at all. It will not be mandatory so the usefulness of this database will be immediately limited and we will ignore the costs of putting it together and maintaining it and the questions about where the money will come from. Here's how I see this going if it doesn't get killed in the house..........

Any landowner that doesn't want hunters or phone calls will be red right off the bat. Any landowner that already has standing relationships with hunters and like the current arrangement will be red to protect those hunters. (That's where I'll end up. I have enough hunters on my place already that taking calls from others will just make me feel bad when I say no, so I'll be avoiding that all together.) Any landowner that really doesn't care if hunters go on their land, but want to know who is out there will start out as yellow. Then during harvest or planting (think spring snow goose) when the phone starts to ring off the hook from hunters will soon change to red as many of the landowners just won't have the time to deal with hunters and won't want the hassles. The landowners that put their land in green or leave it yellow, will see an uptick in use and abuse due to so much other land being closed (red) that I can't help but think that uptick in use will push at least some of them over to red after a few years. So in essence what I see happening with this so called compromise is that it will end up being almost the same thing as just being a total no trespass state. Which is exactly what the proponents of this bill wanted in the first place. So where's this so called compromise again?? If you care about your hunting opportunities and want your children to enjoy what you have today, Please contact your reps and urge them to vote NO on this bill.

 

[fly2cast]

Sportsman should see this compromise for what it really is IMO and hopefully contact their reps and get this thing killed. Do NOT be fooled. This so called compromise essentially is no compromise at all. It will not be mandatory so the usefulness of this database will be immediately limited and we will ignore the costs of putting it together and maintaining it and the questions about where the money will come from. Here's how I see this going if it doesn't get killed in the house..........

Any landowner that doesn't want hunters or phone calls will be red right off the bat. Any landowner that already has standing relationships with hunters and like the current arrangement will be red to protect those hunters. (That's where I'll end up. I have enough hunters on my place already that taking calls from others will just make me feel bad when I say no, so I'll be avoiding that all together.) Any landowner that really doesn't care if hunters go on their land, but want to know who is out there will start out as yellow. Then during harvest or planting (think spring snow goose) when the phone starts to ring off the hook from hunters will soon change to red as many of the landowners just won't have the time to deal with hunters and won't want the hassles. The landowners that put their land in green or leave it yellow, will see an uptick in use and abuse due to so much other land being closed (red) that I can't help but think that uptick in use will push at least some of them over to red after a few years. So in essence what I see happening with this so called compromise is that it will end up being almost the same thing as just being a total no trespass state. Which is exactly what the proponents of this bill wanted in the first place. So where's this so called compromise again?? If you care about your hunting opportunities and want your children to enjoy what you have today, Please contact your reps and urge them to vote NO on this bill.

This is exactly what I think will happen. The less land that is open, the more it will get used. The more it gets used, the more likely the farmer will post it until there is virtually no unposted land.

 

[fireone]

KDM is right. 2315 is just the foot in the door. NDFB & NDSA don't care if it takes longer to make ND total no trespass because they will come back eventually for more and more concessions. Just like they have every time in the past. The pattern is set. You aren't dealing with farmers as whole here, just a small hard core minority.

At some point hunters will have to get off the pot or lose it all.
https://vip.sos.nd.gov/PortalListDetails.aspx?ptlhPKID=7&ptlPKID=1#content-start

 

[Walleye_Chaser]

I completely agree with KDM.

 

[guywhofishes]

Yep - agreed. That's exactly what I told senator in a one-on-one discussion. That it will snowball quickly - and the bill's proponents know it.

And what little public land hunters have will get piss-pounded.

If you own land that borders public you are going to loathe this as a landowner - because the "cheating" onto neighboring land will absolutely skyrocket.

That's why this thread makes me depressed - too many here are calling it a reasonable compromise.

Like KDM I ask myself where's the compromise?

 

[Brian Renville]

I think you're exactly right, this bill to me looks like a waste of time between how it is now and a system like over here in MT. Landowners love that system. The biggest change with that is time to get out the checkbooks boys. The money paid to landowners is going to come from somewhere and if they don't want to burden what nonresident hunters bring to the state $$$ things might get pricey. A few guys said on another thread that PLOTS is the same, it's not. There generally isn't many landowners reguirement in MT and as long as people sign in when they hunt they get paid. Up to $15k a year I believe while still doing what they want with their land. Considering the tiny amout of public land ND has that's going to mean a big price tag for access. Nonresident will go up for sure but I wonder if, other than the badlands, it's worth it for a nonresident to pay that kind of money to shoot a deer when they can have the same hunt for maybe the same price in MT or WY? Generally I think we have a generational dispute more than anything these days. The farmers and landowners now feel differently about how they control things as their fathers and grandfathers did while hunters have become far more sport than necessity. Both sides see that and it irritates them both. Chicken or the egg debate maybe.

Sportsman should see this compromise for what it really is IMO and hopefully contact their reps and get this thing killed. Do NOT be fooled. This so called compromise essentially is no compromise at all. It will not be mandatory so the usefulness of this database will be immediately limited and we will ignore the costs of putting it together and maintaining it and the questions about where the money will come from. Here's how I see this going if it doesn't get killed in the house..........

Any landowner that doesn't want hunters or phone calls will be red right off the bat. Any landowner that already has standing relationships with hunters and like the current arrangement will be red to protect those hunters. (That's where I'll end up. I have enough hunters on my place already that taking calls from others will just make me feel bad when I say no, so I'll be avoiding that all together.) Any landowner that really doesn't care if hunters go on their land, but want to know who is out there will start out as yellow. Then during harvest or planting (think spring snow goose) when the phone starts to ring off the hook from hunters will soon change to red as many of the landowners just won't have the time to deal with hunters and won't want the hassles. The landowners that put their land in green or leave it yellow, will see an uptick in use and abuse due to so much other land being closed (red) that I can't help but think that uptick in use will push at least some of them over to red after a few years. So in essence what I see happening with this so called compromise is that it will end up being almost the same thing as just being a total no trespass state. Which is exactly what the proponents of this bill wanted in the first place. So where's this so called compromise again?? If you care about your hunting opportunities and want your children to enjoy what you have today, Please contact your reps and urge them to vote NO on this bill.

 

[628977]

This is exactly what I think will happen. The less land that is open, the more it will get used. The more it gets used, the more likely the farmer will post it until there is virtually no unposted land.

Well said. Our wild resources are being limited to only the people who are privileged to be born into land. Future generations are going to be screwed and wont get to enjoy hunting and trapping those resources.