North Dakota hunting gets a boost

[espringers]

With her being dead and all, it's gonna be hard to know what her real wishes were. All we have is her will and the words of her relatives. Whose to say they aren't jaded relatives and the will isn't her true wishes? Just playing devils advocate here.

- - - Updated - - -

And for the few who are anti perpetual easements, how is this much different? If you were a potential heir to a section of land, would you rather get the land with a perpetual easement attached or just rather see it gifted outright to the game and fish?

 

[Bed Wetter]

With her being dead and all, it's gonna be hard to know what her real wishes were. All we have is her will and the words of her relatives. Whose to say they aren't jaded relatives and the will isn't her true wishes? Just playing devils advocate here.

Crossed my mind too. Good point.

 

[KDM]

If the will states that the property is to be gifted to ND to be a Wildlife Management Area or Wildlife Sanctuary, it really doesn't matter. The relatives won't see the value of the property regardless if they are jaded or not. If the family testifies that she wanted the property to be a sanctuary and the wording of the will supports that interpretation, then, IMO, that is what the property should be. Apparently she refused to allow hunting on that property on numerous occasions while she was alive as put forth by JohnR, which lends credibility to the argument. Affidavits can be taken from anyone willing to provide one that can be brought forth in support of the argument that Ms. Roth wanted the property to be a wildlife sanctuary. Will the G&F allow it?? We shall see.

 

[espringers]

I think if the family decided to fight it out in court, it wouldn't be up to the gnf to decide anything really.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

We can all be grateful she didn't leave it to the Humane Society's Wildlife Land Trust.

http://www.wildlifelandtrust.org/

espringers said,

And for the few who are anti perpetual easements, how is this much different?

When making a purchase of anything, I don't like the dead hand of the previous owner dictating terms into perpetuity. Of course this isn't a purchase, more like a gift.

 

[espringers]

Are transfers to the hswlt allowed in North Dakota?

- - - Updated - - -

And I get the anti perpetual easement argument. But, it seems like we kind of draw a line in the sand on the issue and the underlying logic on where we draw that line is kind of fuzzy to me.

 

[Rut2much]

This makes me kind of sad as there's some truth to what KDM said. While I'd like to hunt it, I'd also like to have my wishes honored when I die. Nothing wrong with an OCCASIONAL wildlife sanctuary. Eventually the critters will venture off that land... Kind of torn on this.

- - - Updated - - -

I totally agree and if its anything like what happened when the gnf opened the Loma Refuge up to hunting 10-15 years ago, it'll be a sad deal for the surrounding area in the end. Nothing like an occasional "somewhat mysterious" sanctuary for wildlife in this trail-cam age to keep them in the general area and somewhere to take a drive to anytime of the year; just never knowing what you might witness without the high fences of course.
Do the right thing and respect the woman's wishes based on those that knew her interest's best would be my vote.

 

[Bed Wetter]

If the will states that the property is to be gifted to ND to be a Wildlife Management Area or Wildlife Sanctuary, it really doesn't matter. The relatives won't see the value of the property regardless if they are jaded or not. If the family testifies that she wanted the property to be a sanctuary and the wording of the will supports that interpretation, then, IMO, that is what the property should be. Apparently she refused to allow hunting on that property on numerous occasions while she was alive as put forth by JohnR, which lends credibility to the argument. Affidavits can be taken from anyone willing to provide one that can be brought forth in support of the argument that Ms. Roth wanted the property to be a wildlife sanctuary. Will the G&F allow it?? We shall see.

Brilliant.

 

[gst]

Are transfers to the hswlt allowed in North Dakota?

- - - Updated - - -

And I get the anti perpetual easement argument. But, it seems like we kind of draw a line in the sand on the issue and the underlying logic on where we draw that line is kind of fuzzy to me.

They are two completely different things espringers. One is transfer of ownership. If she transferred ownership without clear instructions of usage tied to the agreement, the NDG&F can do what they want, they own it.

Perpetual easements, no matter who owns it forever, till the end of time, after the comet hits, after the ice age comes, they do not get to make the same decisions the original owner that put it into the perpetual did.

Hopefully that just hilites the difference without this turning into what this subject has in the past on different sites.

 

[eyexer]

I'm sure the parties involved have the signed copies of what her desires were. If things were spelled out clearly what she wanted the family will let a judge decide.

 

[gst]

Are transfers to the hswlt allowed in North Dakota?

- - - Updated - - -
.

yes.

 

[Rowdie]

Lets say they get it to be a wildlife sanctuary, where hunting is prohibited. Could Johnr and buddies walk the trees armed with only cameras? Whose to say they are spooking deer out of there to be hunted on adjoining land??

 

[Taylorman55]

Lets say they get it to be a wildlife sanctuary, where hunting is prohibited. Could Johnr and buddies walk the trees armed with only cameras? Whose to say they are spooking deer out of there to be hunted on adjoining land??

If spooking or moving any wildlife they would be given a ticket and rather quickly.It's all about their intentions. That place will be watched like a hawk. IF it ever got changed over to a sanctuary, I am sure there wouldn't even be walking access in there, especially around the farmstead and trees. Im sure the game and fish guys are watching this and laughing because its already a done deal that its going to be a hunting area. lol

 

[fnznfwl]

If HER wishes were for a wildlife sanctuary devoid of any hunting then that's what it should be. However, now that she is gone and the liars are involved, I have very little faith that the spirit of her wishes will be honored. I've gone from what a great gift to the folks of ND to Awe Crap!! However, the G&F still has the authority to put up "Not open to public hunting" signs all over the place and that would honor her wishes. Regardless of what they decide to do, you won't see me hunting that place as I'd feel "Unwelcome" to be doing so. Tough situation now more of the truth is coming to light.

No they dont. The G&F budget is funded completely by hunting and fishing license revenue. They have to provide access.

If she indeed wanted this place to be a "sanctuary" her and her lawyers are to blame for not doing their due diligence. Somethign tells me that they did in fact know hunting would be allowed.
otherwise she could have possibly donated the land to the feds (USFWS) and it could have been utilized as a refuge. Or she could have donated it tot he Wildlife land trust.(HSUS) but they didnt. So hunt on my friends! cause your lisc $$ will be paying to maintain that land and pay the taxes.

 

[KDM]

No they dont. The G&F budget is funded completely by hunting and fishing license revenue. They have to provide access.

If she indeed wanted this place to be a "sanctuary" her and her lawyers are to blame for not doing their due diligence. Somethign tells me that they did in fact know hunting would be allowed.
otherwise she could have possibly donated the land to the feds (USFWS) and it could have been utilized as a refuge. Or she could have donated it tot he Wildlife land trust.(HSUS) but they didnt. So hunt on my friends! cause your lisc $$ will be paying to maintain that land and pay the taxes.

Then please explain to me fnznfwl the signs I see at various locations around the state where public land is posted "Not open to public hunting". If you can't explain that, I will stick with my original statement and contend that if the G&F has control over a piece of property, they control the activities such as hunting, and can post it "Not open to public hunting". Thanks!!!

 

[fnznfwl]

Then please explain to me fnznfwl the signs I see at various locations around the state where public land is posted "Not open to public hunting". If you can't explain that, I will stick with my original statement and contend that if the G&F has control over a piece of property, they control the activities such as hunting, and can post it "Not open to public hunting". Thanks!!!

I'm curious to where you've seen state WMA land closed to hunting? Are you sure you aren't seeing those signs on Federal lands?

 

[KDM]

Some state lands, some federal, some school lands, but ALL posted with NDGF signs.

 

[fnznfwl]

Some state lands, some federal, some school lands, but ALL posted with NDGF signs.

Where? Specifically?

NDGF has ZERO jurisdiction over state school land or federal lands. If you are seeing NDGF (not USFWS or State land trust) signs on Federal or state school land, something is very wrong and should be reported.

I know of no state wildlife management areas that are permanently closed to public hunting.

 

[KDM]

Whatever. Not going to argue about it as I don't feel like doing the research in the ND century codes on land rights as I'm pretty sure my rights as a landowner are the same for the State, NDGF, NDSU, Counties, Cities, and many other munincipalities. My point is, that the G&F has the authority to restrict any and all activities on land that they control. They can post any land "No Hunting" or totally restrict access from Sept-January if they choose. Lakes can be totally closed to fishing by the G&F, but are supposed to be public domain. Lands are no different. You have to remember that the G&F answers to the Governor and and the Governor alone, NOT the legislature.

 

[fnznfwl]

Whatever. Not going to argue about it as I don't feel like doing the research in the ND century codes on land rights as I'm pretty sure my rights as a landowner are the same for the State, NDGF, NDSU, Counties, Cities, and many other munincipalities. My point is, that the G&F has the authority to restrict any and all activities on land that they control. They can post any land "No Hunting" or totally restrict access from Sept-January if they choose. Lakes can be totally closed to fishing by the G&F, but are supposed to be public domain. Lands are no different. You have to remember that the G&F answers to the Governor and and the Governor alone, NOT the legislature.

Again you are wrong. The legislature has alot of control over seasons, licenses allowed, and many other things that should be left to biologists, not politicians.

Good day.