HB 1021 - "The Database" End-Around

[Sluggo]

OK, I just gotta ask. Why wouldn't this approach work:
1. Create the database.
2. If a landowner doesn't enter info in the DB, their land would be treated like it is today. Post if you want it posted, leave it open if you want.
3. If a landowner does enter info in the DB, they could specify: Posted and don't ask, Posted but you can ask, not posted.

 

[Davey Crockett]

OK, I just gotta ask. Why wouldn't this approach work:
1. Create the database.
2. If a landowner doesn't enter info in the DB, their land would be treated like it is today. Post if you want it posted, leave it open if you want.
3. If a landowner does enter info in the DB, they could specify: Posted and don't ask, Posted but you can ask, not posted.

I don't know about anyone else but that would make me happy .

 

[guywhofishes]

Sluggo - your concept won't "work", because it would probably actually work. LOL.

it seems that a logical approach is not considered viable because what's suggested in your idea is not their actual goal

their goal seems to be to get all private land closed to access of any kind - at least that is what seems to be happening by the way they are grinding this sausagefest

 

[bravo]

If there was funding to make the database/app that worked well, and was properly maintained (aka, something the government has yet to be able to do,), sure. My counter to that is that land should be considered open to hunting and fishing UNLESS the landowner opts to have it posted. And all counties and townships must participate.

Still, what would it solve?

 

[Sluggo]

If there was funding to make the database/app that worked well, and was properly maintained (aka, something the government has yet to be able to do,), sure. My counter to that is that land should be considered open to hunting and fishing UNLESS the landowner opts to have it posted. And all counties and townships must participate.

Still, what would it solve?

It would be open if he did nothing, just like now. The landowner can "opt" to post it by either putting up paper signs like today or indicating it's posted electronically in the database: there are 2 ways to post. I don't know about funding but we throw money at everything else so I doubt that should be a show stopper.

It solves the landowner having to put up signs as they can post it electronically.

It solves having contact info available to the hunter if the landowner posts electronically.

 

[ndlongshot]

Because landowners dont want their info out there. I want my land exempt. Missing info. Whatever you want to call it. If you want to see it, come drive past and look for a sign. Why am i forced to pick a color? It might be open, might be closed. Depends on who knocks on the door. That said, i wont post it orange either as come ask. I dont want the attention. Fact is, they arent giving landowners all the options they want, so im against it. They want to force us into this and they can piss off. Not to mention who is going to pay for it.

 

[Walleye_Chaser]

Because landowners dont want their info out there. I want my land exempt. Missing info. Whatever you want to call it. If you want to see it, come drive past and look for a sign. Why am i forced to pick a color? It might be open, might be closed. Depends on who knocks on the door. That said, i wont post it orange either as come ask. I dont want the attention. Fact is, they arent giving landowners all the options they want, so im against it. They want to force us into this and they can piss off. Not to mention who is going to pay for it.

Ding Ding Ding!

 

[Sluggo]

Ding Ding Ding!

See number 2: If a landowner doesn't enter info in the DB, their land would be treated like it is today. Post if you want it posted, leave it open if you want.

- - - Updated - - -

Because landowners dont want their info out there. I want my land exempt. Missing info. Whatever you want to call it. If you want to see it, come drive past and look for a sign. Why am i forced to pick a color? It might be open, might be closed. Depends on who knocks on the door. That said, i wont post it orange either as come ask. I dont want the attention. Fact is, they arent giving landowners all the options they want, so im against it. They want to force us into this and they can piss off. Not to mention who is going to pay for it.

See number 2: If a landowner doesn't enter info in the DB, their land would be treated like it is today. Post if you want it posted, leave it open if you want.

 

[guywhofishes]

Sluggo for public office. He has the free time!

- - - Updated - - -

and a BRAIN

 

[Sluggo]

Sluggo for public office. He has the free time!

and a BRAIN

Let's not get carried away...…….on either account.

 

[Uncle Jimbo]

OK, I just gotta ask. Why wouldn't this approach work:
1. Create the database.
2. If a landowner doesn't enter info in the DB, their land would be treated like it is today. Post if you want it posted, leave it open if you want.
3. If a landowner does enter info in the DB, they could specify: Posted and don't ask, Posted but you can ask, not posted.

How will this curb trespassing? Isn't that what the proponents of the bill say it's intended to fix? If the issue is landowners wanting relief from posting their land why hasn't that been clearly defined? A database may provide relief to posting but it won't curb trespassing!

When we want to reduce unwanted behavior we increase enforcement and penalties.

I don't believe for a second the proponents of this bill will be happy with a database. They won't stop until all land is considered posted and they can exploit access for money.

 

[Sluggo]

How will this curb trespassing? Isn't that what the proponents of the bill say it's intended to fix? If the issue is landowners wanting relief from posting their land why hasn't that been clearly defined? A database may provide relief to posting but it won't curb trespassing!

When we want to reduce unwanted behavior we increase enforcement and penalties.

I don't believe for a second the proponents of this bill will be happy with a database. They won't stop until all land is considered posted and they can exploit access for money.

It wouldn't curb trespassing. If that is the goal, to lock down land 12 months of the year so you can't step foot on it without permission, then that has nothing to do with hunting, although it would certainly impact hunting. Is that the goal?

 

[njsimonson]

The conference committee on SB 2315 was released today...if the names look familiar, it's because most of them are proponents of SB 2315 and some obvious blatant anti-hunters (including the coiner of new phraseology for my "illegitimate" friends out there - I sure hope the Wahpeton crowd is paying attention).

Here's who is going to re-write the bill tomorrow...care to take a guess as to what it will look like? Everyone but Heinart was a YES vote for the previous versions of SB 2315. So much for an even playing field.
[FONT=&quot]
House (3) Schriber-Beck, Heinart, Tveit

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Senate (3) - Luick, Erbele, Larson

If you're in Bismarck tomorrow, pop on down to the capitol at 10:45am and visit the Roosevelt Park Room from 11:00-11:30am. I'm sure they'd be glad to see some sportsmen! ;:;rofl[/FONT]

 

[Fritz the Cat]

I care who you are and why you're here.

I don't care what you (supposedly) think because I don't trust you. You never answer questions related to your presence here.

So I am forced to assume that the only reason you're here is to stir up trouble like an old woman in a village. I would classify you as an agitator. You have an agenda unrelated to a personal connection to the outdoors and shooting/hunting/fishing.

- - - Updated - - -

also - Davey - please refrain from publicly posting our super duper secret private clubhouse discussions

What a doggone pussy ass thing to write. I am an avid goose hunter. We do our scouting the day before and ask. Posted and sometimes unposted. But your best laid plans can go awry. Early in the morning someone else is in your field. Time to go to an unposted spot. Too early to make phone calls. If all land is considered posted that would goof me up, time to go home. However, with a green app I'm going hunting.

In my area some hunters ask farmers who don't post if they can post it for them and keep everyone else off. A green app isn't going to fix that as hunters will approach old farmers who don't know computers if they can help them out and will push the red button again keeping everyone else out.

My position has not changed. SB 2315 should have reversed the presumption that all land is considered open and require permission to access private property, except for hunting, where designations of open or closed would be indicated on an electronic database.



​

 

[jdinny]

i think the biggest issue with the above scenario is the database would have people who dont enroll as "green" meaning open to hunting.
when they roll up its posted the "old fashion way" what trmps what? i certainly understand the posted sign trumps all. the majority of us on this website understand the posted sign trumps all but if that scenario is to happen their needs to be some hefty education by the GF basically saying the database is a "starting point" but posted signs trump all.

- - - Updated - - -

sluugo or are you saying if they landowner does nothing, basically the database is blank for that landowner??

- - - Updated - - -

that could probably be a workable huh? you do nothing theres nothing treat it like today?

 

[bravo]

People who go green on the app but have posted signs in their fields are illegitimate landowners.

 

[jdinny]

People who go green on the app but have posted signs in their fields are illegitimate landowners.

well I think we all know the70- 75 year old who posts his land legally but can barley run a smart phone. again as long as there is some education or maybe a default white meaning no data entered I would that that could be doable

 

[guywhofishes]

What a doggone pussy ass thing to write.

Of all the things written to/about you recently, mine got you riled up?

Like I said - I don't trust you. Sorry - not sorry.

 

[bravo]

well I think we all know the70- 75 year old who posts his land legally but can barley run a smart phone. again as long as there is some education or maybe a default white meaning no data entered I would that that could be doable

I agree, just a joke about a certain rep's comments.

 

[Trip McNeely]

The conference committee on SB 2315 was released today...if the names look familiar, it's because most of them are proponents of SB 2315 and some obvious blatant anti-hunters (including the coiner of new phraseology for my "illegitimate" friends out there - I sure hope the Wahpeton crowd is paying attention).

Here's who is going to re-write the bill tomorrow...care to take a guess as to what it will look like? Everyone but Heinart was a YES vote for the previous versions of SB 2315. So much for an even playing field.

House (3) Schriber-Beck, Heinart, Tveit


Senate (3) - Luick, Erbele, Larson

If you're in Bismarck tomorrow, pop on down to the capitol at 10:45am and visit the Roosevelt Park Room from 11:00-11:30am. I'm sure they'd be glad to see some sportsmen! ;:;rofl

How does this even work nick? How do they randomly select members to rewrite this bill and end up with the major proponents of the original bill? This whole thing stunk like shit from the beginning and has progressively gotten worse and now to top the cake is this giant duece? Wtf? This is a crooked system.