Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Allen" data-source="post: 246566" data-attributes="member: 389">Senators, I will try to keep this relatively short as I know you all keep busy schedules during the legislative season. Rarely do I feel the need to weigh in on pending legislation as I think it usually tends to work itself out.  However, I am writing today to express my deepest opposition to SB 2315, the No Trespass law in your committee because of the incredible amount of damage this bill would do to North Dakota, our way of life, and the local economies of our small towns across the state.As a landowner and hunter, I am well aware of the current laws regarding No Hunting and/or No Trespassing. In my opinion they are complete and sufficient enough for me to deal with fellow landowners and fellow hunters who seek to access my land.  In short, there is no need for such a draconian change in how North Dakota handles property rights. The current law allows us landowners to exclude who we wish from our land with something as simple as a No Hunting sign at gates for fenced in land and at 880 yard intervals along unfenced areas. On the other extreme is the actual No Trespass rules, any property owner can seek prosecution of someone violating their property rights via prosecution under either the No Hunting provisions in the Century Code, or even the existing No Trespassing laws (which have a lower standard for notifying people that you don't want them on your property), and yet there were only 59 violations prosecuted this latest year according to NDGF. In short, let me provide the following bullets:1. The proposed changes would appear to sought by only a fairly small number of existing landowners based upon the number of recent prosecutions.2. Ownership of land is a right that does come with some responsibilities. All landowners in ND obtained their land under the existing rules and could have chosen to relocate/buy land in neighboring states with No Trespass laws similar to this one. 3. The cost of Posting your property is minimal, 4 paper signs cost less than $4 total and provide legal notice to the landowner's intent for 160 acres of land. There is literally nothing else that costs so little when it comes to managing that much land.4. Most hunters have an idea of where they are going when they start the day. More often than not, that plan tends to quickly become a game of searching for another place to hunt to finish out the day. This bill would quickly make the current unposted available land off limits and lower the overall quality of the day's hunt.5. States that currently have No Trespass laws similar to the proposed are vastly different than ND in the amount of public land available, and other tradeoffs (such as SD where one can legally hunt road rights of way). Without similar provisions for ND's hunting population to access game, a great number of them will get even more discouraged and find other activities.6. The amount of money spent in ND's rural communities: gas, food, ammo, clothing, etc are all going to fall if hunting becomes a sport where I start the day with a plan that has no reasonable option for putting more miles on my vehicle, spending more time away from home that I didn't properly prepare for (food!), and fewer opportunities to run out of ammo (yeah, there have been those days).In summary, I ask that you consider what is actually best for the State, its people, and its economy over the relatively small fraction of landowners who simply "don't want to be bothered".Sincerely, AllenLandowner, Hunter, Born and Raised N. Dakotan, and Voter</blockquote>

Verification: What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA