2019 ND Legislature and ND Sportsmens Etree

[jdinny]

kinda sucks when residents of ND have to go to saskatchewan to actually be able to get decent hunting

I will personally guarantee you I will have excellent waterfowl hunting within 35 mins of Bismarck regardless if this bill goes through....overwhelming majority of the land I hunt is posted with yes god forbid orange metal signs...… and I pay $0 other than the landowner gifts mentioned before.

Jesus man does anything positive ever come through that keyboard of yours??? if you spent more time meeting landowners, regardless of your opinion of them play nice to their face maybe just freaking maybe you could establish relationships that last a lifetime and this bill wouldn't kill everything on the face of the earth as we know it.

again im not for it but failing to prepare is preparing to fail.....

 

[eyexer]

I will personally guarantee you I will have excellent waterfowl hunting within 35 mins of Bismarck regardless if this bill goes through....overwhelming majority of the land I hunt is posted with yes god forbid orange metal signs...… and I pay $0 other than the landowner gifts mentioned before.

Jesus man does anything positive ever come through that keyboard of yours??? if you spent more time meeting landowners, regardless of your opinion of them play nice to their face maybe just freaking maybe you could establish relationships that last a lifetime and this bill wouldn't kill everything on the face of the earth as we know it.

again im not for it but failing to prepare is preparing to fail.....

off thee meds? I mainly hunt private posted land of farmers I have relationships with lol. I'm not really concerned about this bill for myself either. I have tons of private posted land I can hunt all over northwest ND. My concern are for others that don't have this opportunity. you have to quit assuming things.

 

[PrairieGhost]

Eyexer I admire your concern for others. Jdinney be careful what you guarantee, the future is tenuous. I refer you to the old cliche about "the best laid plans of mice and men".

 

[Whisky]

I think the outfitters are the trumpet that triggers the end if hunting as we know it. They started a few short years ago and look how fast the leases, pay to hunt and posted signs went up. They were the germ that heralds the end. Like other states the more wealthy will buy it up, but unlike other states we have very little public land to go to. The ranchers out west will be declaring extreme fire danger every year. The outfitters win.

Ok, I have read for years about these outfitters being the end to hunting. And leased land. Can you or anyone else give me real examples of this threat right here in ND? I like to think I get out quite a bit. I have ran into the odd occasional landowner who wants $25/gun to waterfowl hunt, but not very often. Of course there are some outfitters in this state that lease land, but I wouldn't exactly consider it enough to end hunting in ND. More posted signs can't be blamed strictly on guides and outfitters. If a quarter of land is posted this year, but wasn't last year, do you automatically blame outfitters?

Please know that I am just playing devils advocate here. If there is a real problem I'd like to hear about it, with facts. ND just doesn't scream "commercialized hunting" to me.

 

[Mark Mazaheri]

same group of sponsors with another bad bill.

SB2285

Active

Would allow a nonresident to purchase a statewide waterfowl license for $500 that is valid for the remainder of the season after the first week. In addition, would allow the current 14-day or two 7-day periods to be valid statewide.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

Mark,

I believe language in the Bill says $300 of that $500 dollar fee would go towards a private lands open to sportsmen's program.

It's tough trying to sell opportunity in a democratic way.

 

[Reprobait]

https://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/66-2019/documents/19-0969-01000.pdf

Acquisition of Missouri river shoreline.

 

[eyexer]

same group of sponsors with another bad bill.

SB2285

Active

Would allow a nonresident to purchase a statewide waterfowl license for $500 that is valid for the remainder of the season after the first week. In addition, would allow the current 14-day or two 7-day periods to be valid statewide.

who the hell needs outfitters to screw things up when you got the legislature sluttin for the money

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/66-2019/documents/19-0969-01000.pdf

Acquisition of Missouri river shoreline.

land grab? why aren't they fighting to let it go back to the property owner that owns right up to that point? It's really no different than giving an easement back I wouldn't think. There obviously has to be an underlying motive in all of this. I can guess what some of it is but has to be more to it. The big one must be mineral rights

 

[Uncle Jimbo]

land grab? why aren't they fighting to let it go back to the property owner that owns right up to that point? It's really no different than giving an easement back I wouldn't think. There obviously has to be an underlying motive in all of this. I can guess what some of it is but has to be more to it. The big one must be mineral rights

It’s easier to sell it to private parties thru the state than it is thru the feds. This will be an eventual loss for sportsmen if it passes.

 

[Allen]

land grab? why aren't they fighting to let it go back to the property owner that owns right up to that point? It's really no different than giving an easement back I wouldn't think. There obviously has to be an underlying motive in all of this. I can guess what some of it is but has to be more to it. The big one must be mineral rights

I believe this is targeting the federal government's turning over of "non-essential" lands originally acquired for the Garrison Project. The purpose for this would be to keep the shoreline open to you and I for pulling our boats up on it and letting the kids/dogs off to run and play. There is some concern already about TAT eventually working to block off those lands as the feds have moved towards putting those excess lands into a trust for them under BIA management. Someone feel free to correct me on this one.

- - - Updated - - -

And, of course, Jimbo isn't necessarily wrong either.

There are other things as well, such as permitting for water intakes would then be done through the State as opposed to the Corps. This one has been particularly contentious with the State the past several years.

 

[PrairieGhost]

Please know that I am just playing devils advocate here. If there is a real problem I'd like to hear about it, with facts. ND just doesn't scream "commercialized hunting" to me.

I understand. I think part of my perspective comes from the many years I have watched the change on North Dakota. We have a legislator here in Jamestown that I know very well that pushed for guides and outfitter license for North Dakota. As soon as it passed I think he was the first to get a licensr and build a small lodge. I look at Mott and Devils lake as examples. With great hunting it attracted outfitter stsrt ups. Much of the land was already posted, but those who did not post were quickly approached for leasing. Like eyexer I have a pile of land to hunt, but what about the guy who works six days a week and on Sunday goes to church. He gets two weeks vacation and uses at least one week for the family. How does he build a relationship with a landowner. I guess I have built many of mine at church, but you can see my point. Wildlife is being commercialized and currently the outfitters are the market hunters of this generation. When money changes hands to hunt wildlife becomes commercialized. Even if it's only a farmer asking X amount of dollars.

 

[eyexer]

I believe this is targeting the federal government's turning over of "non-essential" lands originally acquired for the Garrison Project. The purpose for this would be to keep the shoreline open to you and I for pulling our boats up on it and letting the kids/dogs off to run and play. There is some concern already about TAT eventually working to block off those lands as the feds have moved towards putting those excess lands into a trust for them under BIA management. Someone feel free to correct me on this one.

- - - Updated - - -

And, of course, Jimbo isn't necessarily wrong either.

There are other things as well, such as permitting for water intakes would then be done through the State as opposed to the Corps. This one has been particularly contentious with the State the past several years.

part of me wants to believe that Allen but my gut says that isn't the case. I believe it's about mineral rights and like stated above selling it to private parties. The state isn't going to want to keep this land up and free from weeds. I hope I'm wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

You just have to look at WY and what ranchers/outfitters have done there. A version of that would certainly happen here.

 

[Allen]

eyexer, I agree in that someone isn't thinking clearly when it comes to maintaining this land. Much less chasing the ever changing definition of shoreline!

I really don't think the feds would give up the mineral rights. Not today, it will be surface rights only.

 

[Migrator Man]

I believe this is targeting the federal government's turning over of "non-essential" lands originally acquired for the Garrison Project. The purpose for this would be to keep the shoreline open to you and I for pulling our boats up on it and letting the kids/dogs off to run and play. There is some concern already about TAT eventually working to block off those lands as the feds have moved towards putting those excess lands into a trust for them under BIA management. Someone feel free to correct me on this one.

- - - Updated - - -

And, of course, Jimbo isn't necessarily wrong either.

There are other things as well, such as permitting for water intakes would then be done through the State as opposed to the Corps. This one has been particularly contentious with the State the past several years.

If the state gains these lands and sells them, or if the tribes take control of them you can kiss even more of the public land good by. I swear if the legislature screws us sportsmen there may be a chance for the democrats once again in ND.

 

[Feildhunter701]

North Dakota already had the least public land in the west. Take away unposted land. And the core land around the lake. And there wouldent be much land to enjoy. That are for fathers payed for with federal dollars.

 

[Reprobait]

The fact that the board on the lands bill is made up of legislators and county commissioners tells us what we need to know. They have an interest in seeing the wildlife lands subdivided and turned into luxury homes. That is my feeling on it. Nobody has ever really explained why this is so needed.

- - - Updated - - -

The way I read this one, HB1503, If I set foot on even unposted land or just have verbal permission to hunt, I am guilty of a class B misdemeanor if I look at some geese, deer, ducks with binoculars or video a moose with my cellphone. I assume it is targeting people who put up trail cams on someone else's land.

Sixty-sixth
Legislative Assembly
3.
An individual is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if the individual enters upon another's
property and, without written permission from the owner or occupant, installs or uses
any device for observing, recording, or photographing wildlife.

 

[Mark Mazaheri]

Here's an puzzling one. I understand the references to peeping in hotel rooms, private homes, buildings, etc - BUT A MISDEMEANOR for having a trail camera on unposted land? You can't even take pictures of the wildlife, probably including landscape/sunsets...

Some of the same ANTI HUNTING sponsors as the nonresident waterfowl bills.

HB1503

Active

Would establish a penalty of a class B misdemeanor if an individual enters upon private property without written permission to observe, record or take pictures of wildlife.

- - - Updated - - -

I wonder how 1503 would be interpreted for all the security cameras that people now have mounted everywhere- city and country- that see well beyond the owners property? Do I now have to ask permission from my neighbors to put a camera on my garage? If one of them says no, are they imposing on my right to self-protection?

 

[Mark Mazaheri]

A NO TRESPASS BILL HAS BEEN SUBMITTED. Sponsors appear to be mostly same group of ANTi-HUNTING legislators who are always trying to kill our outdoor heritage. I was told the hearing will be next week. We need to have a big presence at the committee level and have our testimony heard.

The idea that a trespass law will protect landowners is like the idea that taking my guns protects me from crime.

I will get more info posted later today.

WE NEED TO GET ON THIS IMMEDIATELY.

 

[eyexer]

eyexer, I agree in that someone isn't thinking clearly when it comes to maintaining this land. Much less chasing the ever changing definition of shoreline!

I really don't think the feds would give up the mineral rights. Not today, it will be surface rights only.

does the current lawsuit over mineral rights under the river involve the feds?

 

[Allen]

does the current lawsuit over mineral rights under the river involve the feds?

Not that I am aware of. The feds own most of the minerals under Sakakawea, but once you get out of the Garrison Project reach (which actually goes all the way about Trenton (if I remember correctly) the minerals under the Missouri River belong to the State.