Shame on you hunters

[Skeeter]

I would go one step further and say that public land cannot be completely landlocked by private land. There must be an access! Otherwise you are just giving the landowner sole use of land meant for public use.

This is an asinine statement. There is no landlocked public land in the state. Just because you don’t want to get out of your pickup and walk the section lines to get to it doesn’t mean it’s landlocked

 

[guywhofishes]

I have to wonder if anyone’s been charged with picking up their dog’s crap after it poops in somebody else’s lawn. Cuz it is illegal.

 

[NDSportsman]

I found the “legal beagle” answer after posting first part - as you can see. That’s why I posted the second part update.

My answer in first part of my post was from my personal perspective - “Nope, not in my opinion” is what I was thinking in the first part. That’s why I asked how it all works - country vs city.

sorry guy, completely missed the "updated" deal, my bad

 

[guywhofishes]

ha ha
no biggie

this trespass crap is complicated and tragically dumb - disrespect of other people is at the root of it all

tragic - plain and simple

Jordan Peterson said it well when he described people as “monkeys full of snakes”

 

[Obi-Wan]

This is an asinine statement. There is no landlocked public land in the state. Just because you don’t want to get out of your pickup and walk the section lines to get to it doesn’t mean it’s landlocked

who says you have to walk the section line? Driving the section line in ND is legal as they are considered roads.

 

[KDM]

I think that's you actually. Private land is private. You want the burden to post it closed kept in place where most don't think that's right. If you want to leave your land open then you can post it as such. Either way nothing is going to open more private land to the public. That's why some of the other laws need to be changed so we can actually have more public land.

I thought we were going to agree to disagree, but I guess that's not what you meant. Anyway, here goes.... Show me where I've advocated for something that would do the opposite of what I advocate. I've shown you, three of yours. See post #67. So in order for me to continue "Agreeing to Disagree", you will HAVE to choose one side or the other of an issue as I can only advocate for ONE side of an issue. Then we can either AGREE or Disagree and go from there. I don't have your ability to support property rights by taking them away, or want more land to hunt on by taking land to hunt on away, or forcing property owners to "post" their land open instead of allowing property owners to "post" their land closed if they so desire. Sorry.

 

[Skeeter]

who says you have to walk the section line? Driving the section line in ND is legal as they are considered roads.

Well in that case drive all you want then.

 

[luvcatchingbass]

I would rather post our land that I choose closed versus having the government taking care of me and not giving a choice. It really isn't going to decrease my cost of posting because I am sure the Welcome Hunters will be well priced and then I have to still maintain them and if I feel lazy and decide not to maintain them I would be taking opportunities away from someone that might want to walk for birds or hunt waterfowl. I then will probably be bothered by more people looking to gain access which will begin to tire me if it is interrupting me while I'm busy. A simple NO TRESPASS sign seems to get the point across and when/if they get vandalized it is frustrating but I have found it happens just as much well out of season as it does during season, if not more. What if I have portions of land adjoining each other and I have no problems with letting people hunt part but decide across the fence I want to keep that to my personal use? That now leads to double posting which good chance something will get misunderstood then I get mad, have had enough problems when allowing a known person on and them crossing a boundary that we requested so I see it not getting better in the Welcome Hunters scenario, at least now I keep better tabs on who is out there.
If government wants to infringe on landowner property rights then there could be an argument about reduced land taxes if they are unfairly deeming me not responsible enough or maybe incentives for every acre that I provide with Welcome Hunter signs.;:;popcorn

 

[NDSportsman]

According to you, private land is private, but the trespass bill only affects private landowners and will force them to post their land open instead of just leaving it the way it is where they need to do nothing to make their wishes known?? You want more land open to the public and taking away access to private land is your way of accomplishing that?? You are for property rights and supporting a bill that takes the right to decide to post or not post AWAY from property owners is a good way to support property owners rights?? I think you are correct. We need to agree to disagree, because you talk from two separate and totally opposite sides of the issue simultaneously.

Sorry KDM but you are wrong. The current law takes away the fundamental right of a property owner by forcing them to post their land closed. The burden should be on the landowner that does not care about their property rights to post their land open. A property owner shouldn't have to tell someone to stay the hell off their land. It's as simple as that but seems so difficult for some to understand.

You are mixing up the fact that private property is not public property. I want more public property not more public access to private property.

A no trespass law does not take a landowners right to post their land open to hunting and trespass if that's their prerogative.

- - - Updated - - -

I would rather post our land that I choose closed versus having the government taking care of me and not giving a choice. It really isn't going to decrease my cost of posting because I am sure the Welcome Hunters will be well priced and then I have to still maintain them and if I feel lazy and decide not to maintain them I would be taking opportunities away from someone that might want to walk for birds or hunt waterfowl. I then will probably be bothered by more people looking to gain access which will begin to tire me if it is interrupting me while I'm busy. A simple NO TRESPASS sign seems to get the point across and when/if they get vandalized it is frustrating but I have found it happens just as much well out of season as it does during season, if not more. What if I have portions of land adjoining each other and I have no problems with letting people hunt part but decide across the fence I want to keep that to my personal use? That now leads to double posting which good chance something will get misunderstood then I get mad, have had enough problems when allowing a known person on and them crossing a boundary that we requested so I see it not getting better in the Welcome Hunters scenario, at least now I keep better tabs on who is out there.
If government wants to infringe on landowner property rights then there could be an argument about reduced land taxes if they are unfairly deeming me not responsible enough or maybe incentives for every acre that I provide with Welcome Hunter signs.;:;popcorn

Simple solution, put the rest of your land that you do not care if people are on it into PLOTS and get paid by GNF at the same time. Win/win

 

[PrairieGhost]

Are you talking about the big neon yellow signs?

No he had one of these signs. I run into both that day and don't remember which is which, or maybe both were his. He sure like to rub our nose into how many elk he has shot and we only get one chance.
Nothing compared to Montana though. I have seen abandon all hope yee who enter here. Then this one. The guy has to be insane.

 

[Kurtr]

No he had one of these signs. I run into both that day and don't remember which is which, or maybe both were his. He sure like to rub our nose into how many elk he has shot and we only get one chance.
Nothing compared to Montana though. I have seen abandon all hope yee who enter here. Then this one. The guy has to be insane.

So is that sign legit and if a game warden goes on the land does it hold up in court?

 

[bilbo]

So is that sign legit and if a game warden goes on the land does it hold up in court?

Wow. Good question. Either way it seems a bit extreme, especially the silver coin requirements.

 

[guywhofishes]

I'd hunt it. He forgot to sign/date it. ;:;rofl

Hey GST - that was a joke - I'm a landowner - remember?

But go ahead and enter my quote into evidence at the next trespass hearing you goofball.

We all know you still troll these grounds. You miss the hell out of arguing with us.

 

[KDM]

Sorry KDM but you are wrong. The current law takes away the fundamental right of a property owner by forcing them to post their land closed. The burden should be on the landowner that does not care about their property rights to post their land open. A property owner shouldn't have to tell someone to stay the hell off their land. It's as simple as that but seems so difficult for some to understand.

You are mixing up the fact that private property is not public property. I want more public property not more public access to private property.

A no trespass law does not take a landowners right to post their land open to hunting and trespass if that's their prerogative.

I've been wrong before, but you haven't shown that to be the case in this instance. The current law ALLOWS the landowner to decide to post their land closed. You want to change it to a law where the state decided for the landowner and FORCES landowners to post their land open. There is a difference. Why is that so hard for you to understand. Choose to post closed or forced to post open. Get it?

You want MORE public land for hunters, but want LESS private land to be open to hunters by wanting all private land to be posted. Sounds hypocritical to me looking at it from a hunters point of view as the trespass law results in LESS land for hunters which is why it's an anti-hunting initiative and not a public safety initiative.

You still haven't shown me where I've advocated for something that does the opposite of what I advocate. Thanks!!

 

[1lessdog]

Originally Posted by Obi-Wan
who says you have to walk the section line? Driving the section line in ND is legal as they are considered roads.



Well in that case drive all you want then

Had to know that was coming.

 

[PrairieGhost]

Hey GST - that was a joke - I'm a landowner - remember?

I haven't seen what that nut job has been up to. Is he still copying pages from here to run like a little boy to the legislature? I sort of had the feeling I still live in his head.

 

[NDSportsman]

I've been wrong before, but you haven't shown that to be the case in this instance. The current law ALLOWS the landowner to decide to post their land closed. You want to change it to a law where the state decided for the landowner and FORCES landowners to post their land open. There is a difference. Why is that so hard for you to understand. Choose to post closed or forced to post open. Get it? Choose to leave open or forced to post closed. Why should someone be forced to post closed when it's an inherent right? Get it?

You want MORE public land for hunters, but want LESS private land to be open to hunters by wanting all private land to be posted. Sounds hypocritical to me looking at it from a hunters point of view as the trespass law results in LESS land for hunters which is why it's an anti-hunting initiative and not a public safety initiative. I don't want less private land open and we don't know for a fact it would be less but it's the right thing to do for private property rights. Again landowners have the right to post it open, put it into PLOTS, etc.

You still haven't shown me where I've advocated for something that does the opposite of what I advocate. Thanks!!You're advocating against property rights by supporting a law that allows people to trespass freely while saying you're for property rights.

My comments in red.

 

[guywhofishes]

all of us still live in his head - trust me - he's very active on "the Facebook"

he'll be higher than a kite for at least a decade when this no-posting nonsense eventually passes

at that point he will be forced to send us a taunting message somehow - you can take that to the bank : )

- - - Updated - - -

Fritz will likely carry that water

 

[Bfishn]

1.) As others have said, all the people advocating for the posted law and threatening a private land lockout are already people that post absolutely everything, and don't let anybody hunt other than maybe a few select family members. Their "lockout" threats are meaningless.

2.) They somehow think the posted law will solve something when in fact i guarantee it makes all the issue worse. You will have more frustrated and angry people that lash out toward landowners because of the inability to find any land to hunt. Now even the unposted stuff would require getting in touch with a landowner which maybe impossible, especially in any timely manner. People will shoot first ask questions later and just hope they don't get caught.

 

[guywhofishes]

yep - agree - it's going to make things worse for me as a landowner - I am certain of it