2019 ND Legislature and ND Sportsmens Etree

eyexer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
13,730
Likes
708
Points
428
Location
williston
There is some kind of lawsuit brought by those that had their mineral rights taken by the state under the river. The state could be forced to pay out something like two hundred million if they loose. From what I read about it there is a 50/50 chance for the state to win.
 


Mark Mazaheri

Active Member
Thread starter
Joined
Jan 17, 2017
Posts
52
Likes
0
Points
63
Location
Fargo
here's the bill. The sponsor think an electronic database will be a cure-all for getting permission. That is totally false. High percentage of absentee owners, lack of cell service, hunters who don't have smart phones, are some of the reasons this. The expense and logistical challenges of such an undertaking are daunting.

Here's an editorial that ran in Grand Forks Herald today. This guy has a thorough understanding of the issues.
https://www.grandforksherald.com/op...hanilec-proposal-would-change-hunting-forever


SB2315 Active 01/25/2019 - 08:30AM
Would require permission from the landowner to hunt on private land. Currently permission must be received if the land is posted.
Senator Erbele wants your tax dollars for roads, schools, long-term care, water development, and everything else, but he doesn't want you hunting in his district- on his land or anyone else's.
 

ndlongshot

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Posts
1,777
Likes
112
Points
258
[h=1]Brian Schanilec: Proposal would change hunting forever[/h]By Brian Schanilec Today at 6:13 a.m.
[FONT=&quot]
268








[/FONT]

164zvRMBKKLKHSLcUNrNWDAPbMq2ryr72.jpg



After reading the Herald editorial (Jan. 13: "North Dakota land should be closed") I was alarmed to see the "no trespass law" supported by your editorial board. This law would forever change the great tradition of hunting in our North Dakota culture.

I am a fifth-generation farmer and landowner in North Dakota. I am also a very active hunter, and have had tremendous hunting opportunities growing up in this great state. The "no trespass law" will make freelance hunting ineffective because hunters would have to obtain hunting permission for each parcel of land they hunt that isn't posted.
Freelance hunting is where hunters follow the game. A good example would be following the waterfowl migration. Some may hunt waterfowl in a field one day, and two counties away the next day. Oftentimes, hunters won't know their next field until the evening before.
Many hunters freelance hunt coyotes, but seldom know which field in a 40-mile radius will host the animal.
Many residents and non-residents hunt in North Dakota to experience this freelance hunting. Can you imagine the economic impact to our state if most freelance hunting goes away? The argument that technology will fix the problem of identifying hunting rights to specific properties isn't working. From what I can see, technology gives hunters the name or entity of the property owner faster, which many times is not the person controlling the hunting rights to that given field. With such a high percentage of absentee landowners, technology doesn't help. I wish you luck when you try to call one of my landlords, who is an attorney in Houston, Texas.
When I encounter posted property, there is a name on each sign. That name, in almost all cases, controls the hunting rights on that property. In my experiences it is easier to obtain permission when you have a name to start with. I control the hunting rights on quite a bit of private land. By posting a portion of my land it gives opportunities to many. I control my posted land with signs and manage accordingly. The balance of property means I do not get phone calls during all hours of the day.
Nearly 100 percent of the property I control has hunting done by guests of some magnitude. People are able to reach out to me because my name and address is on every sign. I have so many youth hunters that have harvested their first deer, duck, or goose on ground I control. The number of father-son or father-daughter pairs I've hosted is very rewarding. Where are these youth hunters going to hunt if they do not have connections? We need to promote our youth hunting.
With access to land getting harder to obtain, our tradition is even more threatened with this "no trespass law." If all land is posted automatically, we will be seeing fewer father-youth pairs.
It is ironic you mentioned a couple of other states in your editorial. I own property in a few states. In Minnesota I have a property that is a popular hunting spot. I used to get harassed nonstop before and during hunting season. Many of these calls were done inappropriately and many way too late in the evening.
I consulted with my Minnesota neighbors and on their suggestion, I put up "no hunting or trespassing" signs and all the calls stopped. From this experience I have learned that additional signs solved the problem. I have no problem posting the land I control by putting out "no hunting or trespassing" signs.
When does North Dakota need to do what other states do? Neighboring states that have a "no trespass law" have many of their hunters coming to North Dakota since they don't have a place to hunt in their own state. Those states have destroyed their hunting heritage, making it cost prohibitive. They also are desperately trying to rebuild their resident hunters and are having great difficulty due to many hunters coming here to spend their hunting dollars.
Hunting is a unique sport not to be compared to house intrusion and property theft. When my house is left unlocked accidently, there is no intruder in the "parlor." When I accidently leave the keys in the ignition of my vehicle it is still in the driveway the next morning. The Herald editorial board is comparing apples to oranges. A law drafted in Bismarck isn't going to stop a person with criminal intent.
Brian Schanilec, of Forest River, N.D., is a landowner, hunter and member of numerous sportsmen's clubs.

 

Mark Mazaheri

Active Member
Thread starter
Joined
Jan 17, 2017
Posts
52
Likes
0
Points
63
Location
Fargo
Not only would this bill create a NO TRESPASS LAW, it would also mandate ND Game & Fish to spend YOUR license dollars to create a useless database for landowners, at a cost of MILLIONS of dollar- your dollars. Not only do Senators Erbele, Unruh, Schaible, Klein, and the others want to kill off hunting in ND, they want to kill off the Game & Fish Department by bankrupting it over time.

Read the whole bill. It's a bad joke from some people who do want to legislate for the minority. Somehow, these folks think a new law will change behavior of the criminal element. Again, I suggest the comparison to gun control. Take guns from law abiding people and the criminals will still have them. Make the law abiding sportsmen stay home and the poachers will still be out there.
 


Phill Latio

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2015
Posts
500
Likes
44
Points
173
someone should start a poll on this in here. One might be surprised by how many on this site are in favor of the bill but do not want to speak out about it....
 

Mark Mazaheri

Active Member
Thread starter
Joined
Jan 17, 2017
Posts
52
Likes
0
Points
63
Location
Fargo
There is not a single farmer who would put the financial basis for their entire operation into a public database for the whole world to see. It would force NDGF to spend millions and the participation would be virtually zero. If the ag groups want a compromise, perhaps they should be given the option of posting their land with signs or entering into a "posted" database, paid for by the ag groups.

The sponsors of this bill know THAT would never happen.
 

measure-it

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2015
Posts
547
Likes
100
Points
190
Location
Bismarck, ND
Too easy of sentences for such crime! And then to suspend most of the fines is rediculous. Shame on the shooters (Valleleys) and the judge/court!
 

bravo

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Posts
564
Likes
321
Points
230


Same names as those who have tried to make this happen in the past. Big surprise, Schmidt is pushing for it again. It's unbelievable this man gets re-elected pulling this bullshit. He and his family stand to gain a lot of prime riverside land if he gets his way. Also, all those boat ramps that we paid for eventually become the personal private boat ramps for a select few.
 


Mark Mazaheri

Active Member
Thread starter
Joined
Jan 17, 2017
Posts
52
Likes
0
Points
63
Location
Fargo
Major changes made to SB2315 late yesterday. I have not seen the bill, but there are several meetings with Senators, NDGF, and sportsmen reps today.

Senator Erbele will be on KFGO at 9:05 today, discussing the changes. One thing is certain, he will try to stick the sportsmen in some fashion- access, financially, somehow.
 


Mark Mazaheri

Active Member
Thread starter
Joined
Jan 17, 2017
Posts
52
Likes
0
Points
63
Location
Fargo
the language for the "new 2315" is not yet available, which seems odd, but I am no expert on legislative process.

With regard to property rights, those groups only believe in them when you're talking about production agriculture. If you believe in conservation, the ag groups don't support you. ND law virtually prohibits the sale of land to non-profit conservation groups. The approval process is so onerous, it is almost impossible to get approved. Audubon Society and several other groups have been blocked from acquiring native habitat.

Ex, if one of these groups offers you 2x or 3x market value for your land, you cannot simply sell it to them. You're guaranteed to meet a lot of resistance. Approval from township, county, then state. Ultimately, the Governor has to sign off on it. So much for free and open market.
 

KDM

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
9,650
Likes
1,582
Points
563
Location
Valley City
Not selling to corporations is one law or set laws I agree with. Non-profit, for profit, conservation, or non-conservation, it doesn't make any difference to me. However, lets save that one for another time. Right now we need to trash this trespass debacle.
 

ndlongshot

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Posts
1,777
Likes
112
Points
258
I agree its another topic. But simply stated, if you believe in free market values its pretty tough to support anticorporate laws. You may have your reasons, sure, but its still government control of private assets. Cant have it both ways. Its hypocritical if you only support free market, except in certain instances you dont like. Kinda like free speech. Over n out, back to trespass. Will be interesting to see the revisions.
 

Migrator Man

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Posts
3,961
Likes
22
Points
226
If this bill passes then it’s even more likely that corporations and non profit orgs get allowed to buy land. The backlash will not be pleasant
 


Recent Posts

Friends of NDA

Top Posters of the Month

  • This month: 159
  • This month: 136
  • This month: 120
  • This month: 110
  • This month: 105
  • This month: 87
  • This month: 84
  • This month: 79
  • This month: 76
  • This month: 76
Top Bottom