Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="njsimonson" data-source="post: 243166" data-attributes="member: 1507">TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS FROM A PERSON WHO HAS LIVED IN ND, NEMN, SWMN AND NOW ND AGAIN...recognizing some of these are rhetorical...1. I've asked this before but forget the answer: Other states have no-trespass laws but people post most everything regardless. Why is this? Is it because in western MN people visiting from ND trespass if there are no signs because they are used to that system "at home"? So it seems like nobody is going to be freed from the task/expense of posting their land - at least not for a generation. True or false?The trespass law in MN is not a blanket no trespass law, there are exceptions for non-agricultural (ie: not tilled) land and forest land, whereby you have to post to exclude access, under the letter of the law.  That's why most people still post their land, especially RIM, CREP, CRP and forest (all places where people hunt, basically), in MN.2. Will there suddenly be much more pressure on PLOTS, game management, state, etc.? Or will permission calls just increase a lot and people will continue to hunt unposted land, but after having obtained permission.  Guaranteed.  ND just does not have the WMA/WPA system that MN does, particularly SWMN, and with PLOTS in ND losing about 30% of its acres in the last 10 years, and MN gaining WIA land every year, the two states are going in the opposite direction - this bill would compound that for ND.  ND also does not have the wide-ranging multi-million acre state and national forests of MN's northern tier either which provide basically unlimited public deer and grouse hunting.  Also, it's way easier in MN to create WMAs.  The process in ND is much more difficult in terms of purchase, conversion, state ownership and so on.3. I understand it's not that easy/common for enforcement of no trespass. And law enforcement, not wardens, handle this. Won't enforcement calls "go through the roof" and create an overwhelmed law enforcement situation? I can't imagine the uptick each season opener.  It's a statutory offense and relatively easy to enforce the law in court.  If the land is posted properly, a first-year law student could prosecute the two elements, which are basically: 1) Was the land properly posted?  2) Did the defendant enter onto the property without permission?  It's not a common offense, because the long-standing law we have in place is generally understood and easily followed by the landowners posting it and the people who want to access. 4. Some people were born to cheat. Right now there's a lot of land unposted so they're "satisfied with what they have to hunt", with an occasional cheat here/there if they see game while driving around. If suddenly everything is posted, will this create more people that have a chip on their shoulder about landowners and develop an "oh well, I'll just hunt wherever" attitude. True or false?  95% of people are generally good and law abiding and try to respect the rules at all times.  Human nature doesn't change because the law changes.5. What's the current trespass penalty? - and is it sufficient to act as a deterrent? Criminal Trespass on posted land is a B Misdemeanor, so up to 30 days in jail and $1,000 fine.  That's sufficient.  Second offense in 2 years is a A misdemeanor (NDCC 12.1-22-03)6. Would a no trespass law prevent jackholes from tearing down signs and offering up the "I didn't see the poster" or "I didn't see a signature" type excuses? That would be a pro I guess. No more excuses for cheating.  No, because 5% of the population are jackholes. 7. Would a tax-payer supported program involving no-cost installation of "walk-in" posting for landowners who don't care maybe take the sting out of things for the non-landowners?   Now we're just turning the problem on its head and then socializing the "not-posted" posting of land, making the people pay for a problem that didn't exist, and paying for landowners to manage their land.  8. Would poaching increase?  No. 5% Jackholes / 95% Good people.These are just a few things I wonder about. In general, it seems like mostly a losing situation for both landowners and non landowners, but maybe it'll just "be different" but will all work itself out in the end?   It is, and it will only work out of this bill dies. Otherwise hunting as ND knows it dies with it. If this bill passes, we've lost over a million acres of access...overnight.  Maybe not a big deal to those who have land or access or only care about themselves, but huge to the kid just getting into hunting and the future of conservation.  The more we restrict access, the less hunters we will have, and ultimately the less conservationists we'll have, making a growing problem worse. There is no fallback.  This bill needs to die and its sponsors need to be held accountable in the next election by the people they're selling out.  Also the Governor needs to stop silencing the NDG&F on this topic. One thing I can't figure out is what is so broken now that landowners with power/influence need to change it? If they have land, then the majority of them also have the $ to post and the influence to get law enforcement to prosecute. What are landowners actually gaining from such a law? If it's simply freedom from the expense/hassle of posting that seems minor. Is it freedom from the "excuse" guys who claim it wasn't posted properly? What's genuinely driving this movement? I wish I had a better appreciation for the landowner perspective.  As with all political moves, it's about money and power.  A vocal minority with lots of money and power (Stockmen, Oil & Corporate Ag) paying off representatives and senators and the governor with campaign finance at the expense of the common man to get the only thing that people with power and money want...more power and more money.  I appreciate your well-reasoned questions.  </blockquote>

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

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA