HB 1021 - "The Database" End-Around

[deleted member]

said this before. but, i will have to admit, without the signage requirement, it takes away a lot of excuses that trespassers have. most are legit and unintentional. but, still just an excuse to the person who owns and posts the land.

 

[MuleyMadness]

if you cannot win...just cry about it and make sure you write a letter to try and make everyone feel sorry for you. This sounds like a page right out of the democratic handbook. Everything in that letter is a pure crock of you know what. Worried about getting shot....good grief

 

[Walleye_Chaser]

if you cannot win...just cry about it and make sure you write a letter to try and make everyone feel sorry for you. This sounds like a page right out of the democratic handbook. Everything in that letter is a pure crock of you know what. Worried about getting shot....good grief

Exactly

 

[Duckslayer100]

The irony is it wasn't a letter -- it was an article written by the Ag Week Editorial Board, whatever that is.

- - - Updated - - -

I still don't see why they can't just ramp up the penalties and enforcement for the current law. Hell, I've already been told that the whole "well there's no name and or date so it's not technically posted" loophole some "hunters" use to trespass is complete BS. All the landowners has to prove is intent and the trespasser gets nailed. Even if it's a torn, faded corner of a sign with no legible words, if the landowner wants to press charges a trespasser can get charged. I've been told even the PLYWOOD SQUARE they use to staple a sign to can be technically "posted" as it shows the intent, at one time, was that land was off to hunters.

 

[Whisky]

The irony is it wasn't a letter -- it was an article written by the Ag Week Editorial Board, whatever that is.

- - - Updated - - -

I still don't see why they can't just ramp up the penalties and enforcement for the current law. Hell, I've already been told that the whole "well there's no name and or date so it's not technically posted" loophole some "hunters" use to trespass is complete BS. All the landowners has to prove is intent and the trespasser gets nailed. Even if it's a torn, faded corner of a sign with no legible words, if the landowner wants to press charges a trespasser can get charged. I've been told even the PLYWOOD SQUARE they use to staple a sign to can be technically "posted" as it shows the intent, at one time, was that land was off to hunters.

I think it's important to clarify that the above statement is false, at least if you pursue charges through/with the NDGF.... Now, the Sheriffs department might be a different story, I don't know.

 

[guywhofishes]

It's been my understanding that G&F (wardens) don't play a role in trespass issues - beyond maybe game retrieval.

 

[JMF]

I've never had to turn anybody in for trespassing on our land but if I ever feel the need too the g&f will be my second phone call after the sheriff.

 

[Whisky]

It's been my understanding that G&F (wardens) don't play a role in trespass issues - beyond maybe game retrieval.

Well they write tickets/summons. And have the unfortunate role of playing mediator between landowner and hunter.
If said land in question was not posted exactly per the NDGF state proclamation, the wardens will likely advise landowners that pursuing it would be a waste. That was the case for me, and some others I know... Either the local SA office won't take the case, or it get's contested in court and charges dropped. As they should. The law is the law right..... Lessons learned by landowners, post properly, and move on. If it was only that simple for some.

Again, criminal trespass through the Sheriffs office, must be a different story. I don't know how hunting violations differ from violations through a sheriffs Dept? I do know someone who got charged for 1 old sign buried in some tall grass on an approach in the middle of a quarter. Complete BS deal. That could have easily happened to me, or you. But the NDGF was not involved in that deal, it was 100% sheriff dept.

I just think in the end there is no consistency in all this, from county to county, sheriffs dept to sheriffs dept, warden to warden. With a no trespass law, it's pretty damn black and white for all.

I'm absolutely not advocating for a no trespass law..... But I have been on both sides of this issue, unfortunately. I don't know what the answer is..

 

[eyexer]

Like I've said many times, they can put all the lipstick on this thing that they want but it is and always will be strictly about not having to put up a sign. They are willing to become enemy number one of hunters over their unwillingness to stick a sign in the ground. It's mind boggling.

 

[Duckslayer100]

I think it's important to clarify that the above statement is false, at least if you pursue charges through/with the NDGF.... Now, the Sheriffs department might be a different story, I don't know.

I was told explicitly by a warden that if a landowner wants to press charges, all he has to show is intent. And it's in a hunter's best interest to be darn sure land is not posted before hunting it. It was a conversation brought up during a G&F Town Hall meeting when someone said "Well if it's not date or no phone number, we can hunt it right because that's what the law said!" The warden made it very clear that if a landowner had a posted sign without any information whatsoever, it's still technically posted and if you wanted to fight it in court, the law would side with the landowner.

 

[guywhofishes]

I don't care if it's a single shred of a 15 year old poster hanging there... I'm not going in/on.

 

[Walleye_Chaser]

I don't care if it's a single shred of a 15 year old poster hanging there... I'm not going in/on.

I'm in the same boat. Even if it's an old wood sign where there used to be a paper sign. I still won't go on.

 

[jdinny]

njsimonson,

any updates on this?
i know the session ends what next tuedat the 30th?? so there obvously gonna have to move and move quick on this thing huh?

 

[njsimonson]

The redrafted SB 2315 is in committee today at 9am and 3pm. I'll post the final bill when I get it tonight.

 

[Pheasant 54]

Cant thank you enough for keeping us up to date on this

 

[Walleye_Chaser]

A huge THANK YOU for keeping everyone informed! :;:thumbsup

 

[guywhofishes]

^^^^ me

 

[Whisky]

I was told explicitly by a warden that if a landowner wants to press charges, all he has to show is intent. And it's in a hunter's best interest to be darn sure land is not posted before hunting it. It was a conversation brought up during a G&F Town Hall meeting when someone said "Well if it's not date or no phone number, we can hunt it right because that's what the law said!" The warden made it very clear that if a landowner had a posted sign without any information whatsoever, it's still technically posted and if you wanted to fight it in court, the law would side with the landowner.

Well there you go. You just proved my point about not being consistent from warden to warden. Or county to county, etc.

 

[WormWiggler]

Well there you go. You just proved my point about not being consistent from warden to warden. Or county to county, etc.

I recall a few years ago the discussion went that in order for a person to be prosecuted under G&F violation, then all the perequisites like signature, date, sign placement were required. BUT if any sign of any type is present, or communicated then the person could be prosecuted under the century code for trespassing.

 

[Kurtr]

Is there anything about rocks in section lines?